Dear brother Little Boy Lost,
The Melkite Priest from Saint Elias Church in San Jose had this to say about the Filioque. Is it true regarding the connotations?
Yes. His statement is perfectly correct. The truth is reflected not only in the North American Catholic-Orthodox Agreement on the matter, but also in the
OFFICIAL Clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory in 1994 (IIRC the date). Perhaps others can give you links to those documents for I don’t have the time right now to look for them.
To be perfectly concise, the difference between the Eastern understanding and the Western understanding is that whereas the term “proceeds” is understood by Easterns as referring to the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, the same term is understood by Westerns as referring to the consubstantiality of the Spirit.
I was wondering how do the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East view the Filiioque controversy between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church?
Please read this first:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7722576&postcount=9
I can’t speak absolutely for the ACOE, but if my relation in that post is true, and the Fathers of Constantinople were more concerned about the teaching of the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and Son, rather than His Origin from the Father, then, given that the ACOE has not historically been involved in the debates between the Easterns and Westerns on the matter and they fully accept the Second Ecumenical Council, it would seem logical that they would have no problem with the
Filioque theologically. I hope our several Chaldean or Syro-Malabar brethren are reading this and provide (name removed by moderator)ut and/or correction.
As regards the Orientals, since we have a slightly different understanding of the Essence-Energy distinction than the Easterns, I am of the solid belief that this is not a theological problem with the Orientals either (though I’m sure it will take some explanation given the influence EO have on OO in inter-Orthodox ecumenical ventures).
The issue here is the idea of consubstantiality. Consubstantiality refers to the essence of Divinity that is common to the Three Persons of the Trinity. The distinction lies in the idea that to Easterns, Divinity is distinguished from Essence as Energy (i.e., Divinity is an Energy of God, not His Essence). To Westerns and Orientals however, Divinity is not Energy, but Essence. Divinity is the very thing common to the Three Persons that make Them One God. This is very clear from the teachings of Pope St. Athanasius against the Arians. Pope St. Cyril teaches us the same thing when he asserts that the Divine Essence of the Holy Spirit is from the Son. St. John Damascene (though not a miaphysite, but is certainly of the Oriental Tradition), expresses the exact same thing with his several illustrations of the relationship between Father, Son and the Holy Spirit (e.g. the analogies of water in a spring-river-lake, and of fire passed from one torch to another, etc.). This can all be affirmed even while admitting that the Father is the SOLE ORIGIN Of the Persons of the Son and Holy Spirit. It’s a great Mystery, indeed.
So is it EVER wrong to assert and teach that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father
AND THE SON (i.e.
filioque)?
Of note - during the Council of Florence, among the Orientals (Armenians, Copts, Syriacs, Maronites, “and” ACOE), only the Syriac representative is recorded to have expressed a theological ambivalence about the
filioque, though subsequently affirmed the faith of the Church of Rome on the matter after it was explained to him.
Blessings,
Marduk
