Filioque - Distinguishing the Essence and Person of the Holy Spirit

[Ghosty]

So back to St. John … What does he mean when he says the Spirit through the Son?
It seems to imply some sort of passivity by the Son and the Spirit.
What is the purpose of Father proceeding the essence of the Spirit through the Son if the Son is only a conduit for it and doesn’t contribute?

Even in the West the Son is merely a “conduit” of sorts and doesn’t contribute anything unique. Remember that Christ Himself says that everything He has is from the Father and that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son what is the Father’s. This is highlighted in the West by saying that the Father and Son are “one principle of the Holy Spirit”; if the Son contributed anything of His own then there would be two principles and not just one.

As for the “why”, why did God make us with two arms and not four? Why did God choose the Jews and not the Japanese? Some things are simply unknowable for us, especially the internal life of God. What we do know is that everything the Father has He gives to the Son, and the Holy Spirit receives from the Son what the Son has from the Father. Whatever else it may do, it does highlight the interdependence of the Holy Trinity.

As far as “and” and “through” didn’t the council of Florence agree they we compatible?

Yes, but the Eastern Orthodox have rejected the Council of Florence.

Marybeloved: It seems that you’re getting it.

It is confusing because the East and West use very different theological approaches to explain these mysteries, but it’s important to remember that they don’t actually contradict. These approaches are merely human inventions of language to discuss something that is only vaguely glimpsed by the best of us through Grace.

stephraim:

St. Maximos the Confessor accepted the filioque, though he did want it reworded.

He didn’t even want it reworded, he simply asked the Latins to try to explain it in Greek to the Greeks, but he recognized that this wasn’t easy to translate.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dcointin]

What troubles me about this discussion is the almost total lack of scriptural and patristic argumentation in favor of philosophical speculation about the inner working of the Holy Trinity. A summary of such quotations in context would be far more helpful. Unfortunately I’m not a scholar so I couldn’t provide that, but I would welcome anyone more capable to attempt such an effort. In the meantime, I think we can hardly understand the matter better than St. Maximos the Confessor, a saint who is recognized by both the east and west as orthodox, and who understood both Greek and Latin, and live in both the east and the west when the controversy was first flaring. He wrote:

"With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….

The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (viz., Monothelitism), they have, to date, made no self-defense, because neither have they gotten rid of the things introduced by them.

“But, in accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. One should also keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.”

God help us to follow this saint’s example and end this division once and for all.

 

[Ghosty]

What troubles me about this discussion is the almost total lack of scriptural and patristic argumentation in favor of philosophical speculation about the inner working of the Holy Trinity. A summary of such quotations in context would be far more helpful.

The Patristic support for such speculation is that the Fathers did this sort of thing. They were consumed by it, in fact. Speculation for the sake of speculation is dangerous, of course, but philosophy in order to refute heretics is how the Fathers settled the Arians, and other heretics who assaulted the Trinity in various ways.

There is very little Scripture to draw on in this discussion, and so we must rely on philosophical arguments to highlight our meanings and the contradictions in opposing views. This is what the Fathers did, after all, as they did no have a “Patristic theology” to draw from.

I agree with you in principle, though, that all our beliefs must be grounded in Scripture and what the Father’s have handed down to us. The format of internet posts makes it difficult to reproduce entire Patristic works, but at least we can cite the relevant portions as clearly as possible.

Peace and God bless!

 

[DadDave]

Even in the West the Son is merely a “conduit” of sorts and doesn’t contribute anything unique. Remember that Christ Himself says that everything He has is from the Father and that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son what is the Father’s. This is highlighted in the West by saying that the Father and Son are “one principle of the Holy Spirit”; if the Son contributed anything of His own then there would be two principles and not just one.

But doesn’t this contradict Marduk in post#187?

 

[Vico]

MaryBeloved, DadDave, Ghosty, others, take a look at this from Pope St. Gregory I:

Pope St. Gregory the Great, however, affirms what St. Photius categorically denied. The holy pontiff states the following:

“it is certain that the comforting Spirit always proceeds from the Father and the Son” [1].
This procession is eternal, because the pope says right afterward,

“the Son says that He will depart that the Comforter may come, Who never is absent from the Son.”
Is this an energetic manifestation or does the Holy Spirit derive His existence from the Son and not only from the Father? The latter is St. Gregory’s view, since he teaches, “the Spirit, even in substance, flows from the Son” [2]. He might have been mindful of the nuance of the Greek term ekporeusis, which points to the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father before He does from the Son “according to authorship,” since the Son receives the faculty of active spiration from the Father [3]. Wherefore he says, “The Spirit of the Father and the Son Who issues from both … proceeds ever from the Father” [4]. He also says that the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son in time corresponds to His eternal hypostatic procession from the Father and the Son [5].

catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2010/10/filioque.html

[1] Dialogues 2:38 in PL 76:204; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 219
[2] Morals 2:92 in PL 75 ; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 218 & Siecienski, p. 70
[3] St. Bonaventure, Commentary on the Sentences b. I, d. 12, art. 1, q. 1
[4] Morals 30:17 in PL 76:534; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 218 & Siecienski, p. 70
[5] Homily 28 on John 20:21; qtd. in Siecienski, p. 70

 

[Ghosty]

But doesn’t this contradict Marduk in post#187?

No, I think Mardukm would agree with what I’m saying. What does the Son have to contribute besides what He has from the Father? The Son Spirates the Spirit, of course, but that is because He receives from the Father.

Again, think of the illustration of the spring, river, and sea. The river does not contribute anything unique to the sea, it flows forth with only the water received from the spring.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

So basically we’ve gone from denying that the Spirit hypostatically proceeds from the Son to saying that it does. Why the change?

 

[Mickey]

So basically we’ve gone from denying that the Spirit hypostatically proceeds from the Son to saying that it does. Why the change?

There seems to be a circular type of justification that happens with this dialogue where everything gets intertwined with theology and linguistics and interpretation of the Holy Fathers.

Perhaps the dialogue should shift now to the other question:

Should the Filioque have been added to the creed?

I say no.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There seems to be a circular type of justification that happens with this dialogue where everything gets intertwined with theology and linguistics and interpretation of the Holy Fathers.

Perhaps the dialogue should shift now to the other question:

Should the Filioque have been added to the creed?

I say no.

Frankly, my major concern is that the language being used implies that the Spirit is from the Son rather than through the Son, even though this type of relation [from the Son] is denied by the fathers.

 

[DadDave]

There seems to be a circular type of justification that happens with this dialogue where everything gets intertwined with theology and linguistics and interpretation of the Holy Fathers.

Perhaps the dialogue should shift now to the other question:

Should the Filioque have been added to the creed?

I say no.

Let’s not jump the gun just yet. Give us newbies a chance to see where this goes first, I.e.Ghosty’s view vs what Vico and some others have posted.

As a Catholic who wants the filioque to be true, I am seeing 2 different definitions of what it even means.

 

[Hesychios]

As a Catholic who wants the filioque to be true, I am seeing 2 different definitions of what it even means.

From what I have seen, the Roman Catholic church has done some flipping on this. Even if it had not, it should be no surprise that Roman Catholics are confused, the interpolation is about as imprecise as anything one will ever read in theology, and if you quizz RC laypersons after Mass about what it means (I have done this) they will almost always get it wrong.

It could be reworded to express accurately what the church claims it means, but no one with authority in the RC church is willing to do that. Can you tell us why that is?

 

[Mickey]

Frankly, my major concern is that the language being used implies that the Spirit is from the Son rather than through the Son, even though this type of relation [from the Son] is denied by the fathers.

Indeed. But that conversation is a never ending circle.

 

[Mickey]

It could be reworded to express accurately what the church claims it means, but no one with authority in the RC church is willing to do that. Can you tell us why that is?

That is a very good question.

 

[Mickey]

So back to St. John … What does he mean when he says the Spirit through the Son?

It has to do with St John’s theology of perichoresis.

By the way, tomorrow, December 4, is St John’s Feast day!

Doxasticon For St John of Damascus
Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
O righteous Father John, into all the earth hath the sound of thine achievements gone forth;
wherefore thou hast found in Heaven the reward of thy labors. Thou didst destroy the ranks of the demons; thou didst attain to the orders of the angels, whose life thou didst emulate without blame. Since thou hast boldness with Christ God, pray that peace be granted unto our souls.

 

[Vico]

That is a very good question.

I believe they are being prudent to not undermine efforts at unity. There are dogmatic statements from the councils that are used. A document (non dogmatic) was published (L’Osservatore Romano 1995) and even Blessed Pope John Paul II referred to it. The document now has the title there, but not the contents, on the Vatican website. From the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

 

[Marybeloved]

So basically we’ve gone from denying that the Spirit hypostatically proceeds from the Son to saying that it does. Why the change?

Let’s not jump the gun just yet. Give us newbies a chance to see where this goes first, I.e.Ghosty’s view vs what Vico and some others have posted.

As a Catholic who wants the filioque to be true, I am seeing 2 different definitions of what it even means.

What are the two different views/definitions? I’m a bit lost.

 

[Mickey]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

“The Catholic Church interprets the Filioque with reference to the conciliar and ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value of the confession of faith in the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit, as defined in 381 by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in its Symbol.”
…So then it should not be an issue to state it just as it was promulgated in 381.

 

[DadDave]

I believe they are being prudent to not undermine efforts at unity. There are dogmatic statements from the councils that are used. A document (non dogmatic) was published (L’Osservatore Romano 1995) and even Blessed Pope John Paul II referred to it. The document now has the title there, but not the contents, on the Vatican website. From the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

Thanks for the link. Interesting so far.

 

[Vico]

“The Catholic Church interprets the Filioque with reference to the conciliar and ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value of the confession of faith in the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit, as defined in 381 by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in its Symbol.”
…So then it should not be an issue to state it just as it was promulgated in 381.

The Catholic Church does state it just as promulgated in 381 A.D., in Greek. The issues has gone beyond that, to understanding of it.

The Undersanding of 381 A.D. (a local council) was not accepted by the Latin Church, as explained it is from 447 A.D. accepted at Chalcedon:

CCC 247 The affirmation of the *filioque *does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm

 

[dcointin]

The Catholic Church does state it just as promulgated in 381 A.D., in Greek. The issues has gone beyond that, to understanding of it.

The Undersanding of 381 A.D. (a local council) was not accepted by the Latin Church, as explained it is from 447 A.D. accepted at Chalcedon:

CCC 247 The affirmation of the *filioque *does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm

When does the Catholic Church recite the Nicene Creed in Greek?