Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

The HS proceeds from the Son, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle.

Pope Eugenius says that you are wrong. Here is his definition from the Council of Florence. You will notice at once that he defines that both the eternal procession and the spiration are from both Father and Son:

"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."

Here, for context, is his full definition:

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal [ecumenical] 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.

Pope Eugenius at the Council of Florence.

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28

 

[mtr01]

Orthodoc:

No it hasn’t. If the filioque does not change the faith of Nicea then why not get rid of it for the sake of unity between the two halves of the Catholic Church? After all you put it there, you take it out. But the fact that you refuse to makes your claim empty.

Orthodoc

Orthodoc, since you seem to be confused on this issue, I suggest you ask any of the Eastern Catholics on this board (e.g., Hesychios, ByzCath, or lost-n-found) if they are required to add the filioque when they recite the Creed in their Liturgies. You could also skim some of the previous posts on this thread (around Jan 20th) to find out.

 

[mtr01]

Fr Ambrose:

I am just wondering. Have any of the Catholics who believe the *filioque *dogma offered us a concise definition?

I was waiting to see what MaggieOH was preparing to post.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

mtr01:

Orthodoc, since you seem to be confused on this issue, I suggest you ask any of the Eastern Catholics on this board (e.g., Hesychios, ByzCath, or lost-n-found) if they are required to add the filioque when they recite the Creed in their Liturgies.

But this is one of the sources of the confusion - that the Catholic Church tolerates two versions of the Nicene Creed. Sometimes with the filioque and sometimes without. This appears to the East as an unserious approach to both theology and to the Creed itself.

The Nicene Creed was created by our holy Fathers to be a Symbol of the unity of the Church. Now, very unfortunately, since the time when Rome altered it, it has become the opposite to what they intended. It is now a symbol of disunity, dissension and argument.

The Orthodox, both Eastern and Oriental, are able to profess the same Creed created by the Ecumenical Councils. Alas, neither of us can say the same about the Churches of the West, Catholic or Protestant.

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

But this is one of the sources of the confusion - that the Catholic Church tolerates two versions of the Nicene Creed. Sometimes with the filioque and sometimes without. This appears to the East as an unserious approach to both theology and to the Creed itself. The Nicene Creed was created by our holy Fathers to be a Symbol of the unity of the Church . . .

JMJ + OBT​

I have an idea!

During the next pontificate of Rome, supposing the new Pope is as open to it as John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope John Paul the 3rd?) have been, perhaps the Orthodox patriarchs and the Pope can agree to hold an ecumenical council in Russia (Moscow maybe? or perhaps in Greece? or maybe Poland?) that is to be first and foremost a re-union council.

It would be understood that everything is on the table and the first thing that should be taken care of is the agreement to issue a “new” Creed, which would be the same Creed that the Orthodox use now, but with the statement “proceeds from the Father” expanded somewhat so that it succintly addresses:

(1) the unique “monarchy” of the Father, and so his role as only cause (“aition;” what the East identifies with “cause” in its Trinitarian theology, i.e. “principle without principle”) of both the Son and the Holy Spirit

(2) the “productive power” which is possessed by both the Father and the Son, and so their shared role as cause (not “aition,” but “tamquam ex uno principio;” what the West identifies with “cause” inasmuch as it is sometimes used synonymously with “procession” or “proceeds” or “source” or “principle” in its Trinitarian theology) or principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit.

Then it would be decided that this “new” or “adapted” Creed would always be used in joint professions of Catholics and Orthodox; while it would always remain legitimate for Catholics to profess the version now in common use in the West, i.e. “with filioque,” and for Orthodox to continue to use the original version, i.e. “without filioque.”

Then it would be up to the bishops to work through all of the decrees of the ecumenical councils (of course I understand that the Orthodox don’t understand them to be ecumenical nor binding) that took place since the split, and issue “new” decrees that state everything in language acceptable to both East and West. Examples of things addressed: purgatory, Immaculate Conception, etc. The council should go ahead and address the Catholic doctrine of “Mary Co-redemptrix” while they’re at it.

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

The “holy grail” of the Council’s work to reconcile and re-unify, and at the same time the most difficult discussion, would of course revolve around Papal primacy, jurisdiction and infallibility. I think Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P. has some good thoughts on this matter. The following is taken from his essay A Catholic View of Orthodoxy:

It is in this final perspective that one should consider the role of the Roman bishop as a ‘universal primate’ in the service of the global communion of the churches. One of the most loved titles of the Western Middle Ages for the Roman bishop was universalis papa, and while one would nor wish to retrieve all aspects of Latin ecclesiology in the high mediaeval period, to a Catholic Christian the universal communion of the local churches in their multiple variety does need a father in the pope, just as much as the local church itself, with its varied congregations, ministries and activities, needs a father in the person of the bishop.

It is often said that such an ecclesiology of the papal office is irredeemably Western and Latin, and incapable of translation into Oriental terms. I believe this statement to be unjustified. Just as a patriarch, as regional primate, is responsible for the due functioning of the local churches of in his region under their episcopal heads, so a universal primate is responsible for the operation of the entire episcopal taxis or order, and so for all the churches on a world-wide scale.

Needless to say, this office is meant for the upbuilding, not the destruction, of that episcopal order, founded ultimately as the latter is on the will of the Redeemer in establishing the apostolic mission, and further refined by Tradition in the institution of patriarchal and other primacies in this or that portion of the ecclesial whole. But at the same time, if the ministry of a first bishop is truly to meet the needs of the universal Church it will sometimes have to take decisions that are hard on some local community and unpopular with it.

Were the Orthodox and Catholic Churches to become one, some reform of the structure of the Roman primacy would nonetheless be necessary, especially at the level of the curia romana. The congregation for the Oriental Churches would become a secretariat at the service of the permanent apocrisaries (envoys) of the patriarchs and other primates.

The great majority of the other dicastsries would be re-defined as organs of the Western patriarch, rather than the supreme Pontiff. And yet no universal primacy that merely rubber-stamped the decisions of local or regional churches would be worth having; it would be appearance without reality.

Thus the pope as universal primate would need to retain: first, a doctrinal organ for the coordination of Church teaching, and secondly, some kind of ‘apostolic secretaryship’, replacing the present ill-named ‘Secretariat of State’, for the harmonisation of principles of pastoral care. To these could be added, thirdly, whichever of the ‘new curial’ bodies dealing with those outside the household of faith might be deemed to have proved their usefulness, and finally, a continuing ‘Council for the Public Affairs of the Church’, for the defence of the freedom of the churches (and of human rights) vis-à-vis State power.

The utility of the fourth of these to the Orthodox is obvious. As to the rest (of which only the first two are crucial in importance) they should function only on the rarest ocasions of ‘crisis-management’ as instruments of papal action in the Eastern churches. Normally, they should act, rather, as channels whereby impulses from the Eastern churches - impulses dogmatic, liturgical, contemplative, monastic in tenor -could reach via the pope the wider Church and world.

For this purpose the apocrisaries of the patriarchs, along with the prefects of the Western dicasteries, would need to constitute their governing committees, under papal presidency. It should go without saying that Oriental churches would naturally enjoy full parity with the Latin church throughout the world, and not simply in their homelands - the current Catholic practice. [7]

The Orthodox must ask themselves (as of course they do!) whether such instruments of universal communion (at once limiting and liberating) may not be worth the price. Or must the pleasures of particularity come first?

The close of the council could then be decreed in Greek during the homily of the Divine Liturgy con-celebrated by the Orthodox Patriarchs and the Catholic Pope. And it would likewise be decreed in Latin during the Holy Mass con-celebrated by the Catholic Pope and the Orthodox Patriarchs.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

whosebob:

The “holy grail” of the Council’s work to reconcile and re-unify, and at the same time the most difficult discussion, would of course revolve around Papal primacy, jurisdiction and infallibility. I think Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P. has some good thoughts on this matter

I like this friar. He has some constructive and positive thoughts.

BUT… over the last few days there has been a light growing brighter and brighter at the end of the tunnel… and I now know what will keep us separated forever… Remarriage!

If I am to judge from this Forum, there is no way at all the Church of Rome will ever allow divorce and remarriage. It seems an absolute bete noire. And I am just as sure that the Orthodox will never allow their usage of one divorce and a remarriage to be denied them.

It is this which will turn out to be an irreconciliable difference…

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

. . . It is this which will turn out to be an irreconciliable difference

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

I just can’t bring myself to embrace your pessimism.

Now, I am pessimistic about the terrible persecution which I believe awaits Christians another century or so into the third millenium, as militant secularism becomes the next “Nero” the world over.

But I am not pessimistic about the power of the Holy Sprit and the efficacy of the prayers of all the Saints and Angels of God, especially those of the Most Holy Theotokos, who is the mother of us all!

So when I see such an impasse as you raise, I begin to pray . . .

Come, Holy Spirit! Fill the hearts of thy faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of Your love.

V. Send forth thy Spirit and they shall be created.
R. And thou shalt renew the face of the earth.

Let us pray: O God, who didst instruct the hearts of the faithful by the light of the Holy Spirit, grant us in the same Spirit to be truly wise, and ever to rejoice in His consolations. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

and then . . .

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my Mother. To thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my peition in my necessity, but in your mercy hear and answer me! Amen.

Just remember, nothing is impossible with God, my dear brother in Christ.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

I just can’t bring myself to embrace your pessimism.

Well, I didn’t like to carry my thought through to its ultimate end since it might seem triumphalistic

As the Catholics see the dawning of union and the Popes urge them to embrace their Eastern brethren, many of them will do just that - on account of the more lenient divorce approach. I predict hundreds of thousands of new Orthodox brides and grooms

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

. . . I predict hundreds of thousands of new Orthodox brides and grooms

JMJ + OBT​

At the risk of being critical . . . I think that statement is really tacky.

But I sill enjoy our discussions!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JMJ + OBT​

At the risk of being critical . . . I think that statement is really tacky.

Life is often tacky!

It’s already happening in a small way. Catholic spouses who cannot get remarried in their own church are overjoyed to discover there is no such restriction if they are marrying an Orthodox spouse in an Orthodox church. Since the remarriage effectively deprives the Catholic partner of Catholic communion they opt for Orthodoxy rather than a life without Sacraments.

Sorry if it’s tacky, but that’s what it is like at the coal face.

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

. . . Since the remarriage effectively deprives the Catholic partner of Catholic communion they opt for Orthodoxy rather than a life without Sacraments.

JMJ + OBT​

What if that apostasy or schism (depending on the context, and the Church or ecclesial community for which he/she leaves the Catholic Church) merits for him/her eternal punishment in Hell and deprives him/her of eternal life?

Obviously, there are deep issues here involving conscience, free will, repentance, etc., and absolutes can’t be drawn up as regards judging the choices of individuals . . . but still, apostasy and schism are understood by the Catholic Church to be mortal sins.

Just a thought.

 

[Aris]

Father Ambrose,

So is the synod of Constantinople an ecumenical council?

As I understood it, only an ecumenical council is binding on the whole church.

And Father, it occured to me that the understanding of Truth can be developed.
Before Abraham we did not have that one God. Before Christ, we did not have the Trinity.
And even now we admit that we do not understand God fully.

To me procession from both the Father and Son is not contrary to what was given to us before.
It does not change the oneness and the equality of each person.

What is the quality of God the changes when we add “And the Son” or “through the Son”?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

Father Ambrose,

So is the synod of Constantinople an ecumenical council?

That was not your question. Your question was

If it was an insertion can you please cite any document from the Church that says that this was opposed and who opposed it.

I feel that I accurately answered your question as you stated it.

The Synod of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880 reaffirmed the Symbol of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid.

This Synod was ratified by all Five Patriarchs of Christendom. All five opposed any additions:

1. Rome - Pope John VIII
2. Constantinople - Patriarch Photius
3. Antioch
4. Jerusalem
5. Alexandria

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

To me procession from both the Father and Son is not contrary to what was given to us before.
It does not change the oneness and the equality of each person.

Actually it does change things. It destroys the monarchy of the Father by giving it also to the Son. The Father is distinguished, for us humans, by the manner in which He stands to the other two Persons.

Beware the madness of thinking that human reason can add to the small amount of the nature of the Godhead that has been divinely revealed by the Son.

“The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible,” says St. John Damascene. “We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.”

St. Gregory Nazianzen had already been forced to reject the attempts made to define the mode of the divine procession. “You ask,” he says, “what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God.”

“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.”

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.

So we come back to the humility of the Fathers with which Hesychios began this thread.

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

whosebob:

What if that apostasy or schism (depending on the context, and the Church or ecclesial community for which he/she leaves the Catholic Church) merits for him/her eternal punishment in Hell and deprives him/her of eternal life?

This is not any longer the teaching of the Catholic Church. The bishops say that a person is obliged to follow his conscience, even if this leads him out of the Catholic Church and into, say, a Pentecostal group.

Obviously, there are deep issues here involving conscience, free will, repentance, etc., and absolutes can’t be drawn up as regards judging the choices of individuals . . . but still, apostasy and schism are understood by the Catholic Church to be mortal sins.

Are there any bishops who teach this in the Catholic Church? What is paramount is to follow one’s conscience even if it means leaving the Catholic Church.

At least this is what I know from the Roman Catholic bishops with whom I have been able to discuss this question.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

“The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible,” says St. John Damascene. “We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.”

“I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]). John Damascene

 

[Aris]

Council of Nicaea II

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).

Council of Toledo

We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible. . . . The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son (Council of Toledo [A.D. 447]).

Still looking for a quotation from the synod of constantinople.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

The Synod of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880 reaffirmed the Symbol of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid.

This Synod was ratified by all Five Patriarchs of Christendom. All five opposed any additions:

1. Rome - Pope John VIII
2. Constantinople - Patriarch Photius
3. Antioch
4. Jerusalem
5. Alexandria

I can not find this synod in Constantinople of the 879-880. I do find an 8th Ecumenical council of Constantinople called in 869. Also your mention of Patriarch Photius is inaccurate. He was already opposed to the Church at this time and was condemned for his actions against the Church.

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

This is not any longer the teaching of the Catholic Church. The bishops say that a person is obliged to follow his conscience, even if this leads him out of the Catholic Church and into, say, a Pentecostal group.

JMJ + OBT​

That is entirely incorrect according to Catholic teaching and certainly does not reflect the fullness of Catholic teaching regarding the obligation to “follow one’s conscience” – an invincibly ignorant conscience can lessen the personal guilt (or remove it altogether) involved in the commission of a personal sin (mortal or venial); but an erroneous conscience does not necessarily lessen or remove guilt. Making the distincintion involves questions of conscience formation, etc.

I will find the particulars of Canon Law which clearly define/teach apostasy and schism as being mortal sins – I don’t know them off-hand. When I find them, I will post a link and the relevant quote(s) here.

Are there any bishops who teach this in the Catholic Church?

Yes, there are: the ones who helped draft the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Catechism, for example.

What is paramount is to follow one’s conscience even if it means leaving the Catholic Church. At least this is what I know from the Roman Catholic bishops with whom I have been able to discuss this question.

I’m sorry that you and many others have been so terribly misinformed. Hopefully I can help to correct this extremely problematic understanding of Catholic teaching.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA