Filioque in plain english

[mardukm]

Dear all,

*]
“It should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son, but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son” [St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, 1:8].
*
In specific reply to this quote from the Damascene, please consider the following:

There is a poignant difference between what Blacharnae condemned and what Florence dogmatized - namely,

(1) Blacharnae condemned the idea of equating the terms “through” and “from.”

(2) In specific distinction, Florence equated the terms “through” and “and.”

The Son is not the principle of being “from” in the Latin teaching, but is rather the principle of being “through.” The principle of being “from” belongs to the Father alone.

The Damascene was asserting that only the Father, not the Son, is the principle of being “from.” Nothing that the Catholic Church teaches regarding filioque contradicts this.

St. Maximos used the term aitian (“cause”) in reference to the Father as the principle of being “from” while admitting that the Son was the principle of being “through.” Florence maintained this teaching, but used a different term (“source”) in reference to the Father as the principle of being “from,” while admitting that the Son was the principle of being “through.”

Whatever it was that Blacharnae condemned and what the Damascene was speaking against was not the Latin teaching of Florence. As usual, the problem is one of mere terminology. See my signature line below for the Scriptural exhortation against a focus on mere words that causes disunity in the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear all,

In specific reply to this quote from the Damascene, please consider the following:

There is a poignant difference between what Blacharnae condemned and what Florence dogmatized - namely,

(1) Blacharnae condemned the idea of equating the terms “through” and “from.”

(2) In specific distinction, Florence equated the terms “through” and “and.”

The Son is not the principle of being “from” in the Latin teaching, but is rather the principle of being “through.” The principle of being “from” belongs to the Father alone.

The Damascene was asserting that only the Father, not the Son, is the principle of being “from.” Nothing that the Catholic Church teaches regarding filioque contradicts this.

St. Maximos used the term aitian (“cause”) in reference to the Father as the principle of being “from” while admitting that the Son was the principle of being “through.” Florence maintained this teaching, but used a different term (“source”) in reference to the Father as the principle of being “from,” while admitting that the Son was the principle of being “through.”

Whatever it was that Blacharnae condemned and what the Damascene was speaking against was not the Latin teaching of Florence. As usual, the problem is one of mere terminology. See my signature line below for the Scriptural exhortation against a focus on mere words that causes disunity in the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Excellent point, distinguishing and, from, and through. The words as representations of concepts are limiting. In that sense no expression does justice, apophatic or cataphatic, for all thought requires concepts. We certainly need charity here. There are many examples of condemnation of theological ideas thought to be believed but not actually believed.

In accord, from Lyons II we have have mention of aitian: “The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the ‘principle without principle’”.

The Orthodox fear is that the Catholic dogma means that procession is from the essence rather than from the person somehow.

The Latin Church professes that: The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) the Holy Spirit through the Son. The Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him.
(THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, p. 5)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

In accord, from Lyons II we have have mention of aitian: “The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the ‘principle without principle’”.

I would just like to point out that though aitian to Easterns means “principle without principle,” it does not necessarily mean so to Westerns, but is more often meant to denote the more general term “cause.” That’s part of the problem I think.

The Orthodox fear is that the Catholic dogma means that procession is from the essence rather than from the person somehow.

Yes, I think the more ignorant EO polemicsts utilize that argument. But the more knowledgeable apologists among the Orthodox are aware that Catholic dogma cannot be charged with this polemic. The following, from Bishop John Zizoulias:
It is of course true that, as the Vatican document points out, the Fourth Lateran Council excludes any interpretation that would make divine substance the source or cause, of the Son’s generation and the, Spirit’s procession.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sakares2]

Mardukm when you say,

"That the Father “causes the Spirit to be [has His eternal origin from] by the Generation [of the Son]” is the Traditional teaching of the early Church "

I believe that all (Catholic and Orthodox) are in agreement (?) on this Part So long that it is maintained that it is the Father alone that is Sole Cause of the Begetting of the Son, and in the procession (Ekporeusia) of the Spirit in terms of their eternal Origin. And that the Son Did nothing to Generate the Spirit Himself,and that both are acts Begetting are from the Father alone.

So it seems at the very least there is Harmony there, no?

Also, Hesychios mentioned that the Son Also comes (is Begotten I imagine) through the Spirit, This makes sense to me. Is it incorrect?

 

[mardukm]

Mardukm when you say,

"That the Father “causes the Spirit to be [has His eternal origin from] by the Generation [of the Son]” is the Traditional teaching of the early Church "

I believe that all (Catholic and Orthodox) are in agreement (?) on this Part So long that it is maintained that it is the Father alone that is Sole Cause of the Begetting of the Son, and in the procession (Ekporeusia) of the Spirit in terms of their eternal Origin. And that the Son Did nothing to Generate the Spirit Himself,and that both are acts Begetting are from the Father alone.

So it seems at the very least there is Harmony there, no?

Yes, I agree.

Also, Hesychios mentioned that the Son Also comes (is Begotten I imagine) through the Spirit, This makes sense to me. Is it incorrect?

Unless I’m mistaken, I believe he is referring to the Economy of salvation whereby the Holy Spirit overshadowed St. Mary and conceived our Lord. He is not referring to the internal operations of the Godhead. Only the Son is the principle of Being “through” within the Godhead (that is His hypostatic property), not the Spirit.

The Father alone is the principle of being “from”; the Son alone is the principle of being “through”; the Spirit receives from the Father through the Son.

That is the teaching of the Fathers. But it is a teaching that many EO apparently deny.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sakares2]

I am not sure about cavaradossi, hesychios and apotheoun, I hope to hear from them. But as I said with the two caveats I think that at least there there is common ground.

 

[sakares2]

I should Like to add that in the statement that the Holy Spirit has his eternal Origin From the Father alone By the Begetting of the Son Something a bit more, to clarify.

It seems necessary that In order for the Holy Spirit to Have His eternal Origin from the Father (and the Father alone), it necessitates that the Father is indeed Father, and For the Father to be Father he Must Beget the Son. This is not to say that the Spirit Comes after the Generation of the Son, But only to Show the Relationship Between them All, similar to the breath and the word One does not come before the other, nor does one cause the other. Thus it is meant in like manner that the Spirit has his origin From the Father in or by the Begetting of the Son.

I would be interested in Your Thoughts on this Mardukm.

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

I would just like to point out that though aitian to Easterns means “principle without principle,” it does not necessarily mean so to Westerns, but is more often meant to denote the more general term “cause.” That’s part of the problem I think.

Yes, I think the more ignorant EO polemicsts utilize that argument. But the more knowledgeable apologists among the Orthodox are aware that Catholic dogma cannot be charged with this polemic. The following, from Bishop John Zizoulias:
It is of course true that, as the Vatican document points out, the Fourth Lateran Council excludes any interpretation that would make divine substance the source or cause, of the Son’s generation and the, Spirit’s procession.

Blessings,
Marduk

That is interesting quote of Bishop Zizoulias. So he is referring to this:

“We define that this truth of Faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration”

The way that the Catholic Church understands ‘principle without principle’ is given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church here:

248 At the outsetthe** Eastern tradition expresses**** the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit**. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father *through *the Son.77

The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that** the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit**, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

That is interesting quote of Bishop Zizoulias. So he is referring to this:

“We define that this truth of Faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration”

No. The Council’s statement was rather more explicit. It is in the section that condemned a belief known as the heresy of Abbot Joachim:

“There is a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible, and beyond description, which truly is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That reality is the three persons taken together and each of them taken singly…namely, the divine substance, essence, or nature. That reality is the principle of all things, besides it none other can be found. Yet that reality does not beget, nor is it begotten, nor does it proceed; but it is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds; thus there are distinctions in persons, and unity in nature.”

I think EO polemicists often charge the Catholic Church with this heresy for the simple fact that the only thing they know about the Catholic Church is what their anti-Catholic sources tell them. They are only aware of little snippets of Catholic teaching that their anti-Catholic sources feed them, snippets that in isolation can certainly be used to build a gross caricature of the Catholic Faith. Unfortunately, anti-Catholic polemicists are often unwilling to go beyond their anti-Catholic sources and read what the Catholic Church herself teaches in full (a common trait of polemicists, actually, whether that polemicist is non-Catholic or Catholic).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

No. The Council’s statement was rather more explicit. It is in the section that condemned a belief known as the heresy of Abbot Joachim:

“There is a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible, and beyond description, which truly is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That reality is the three persons taken together and each of them taken singly…namely, the divine substance, essence, or nature. That reality is the principle of all things, besides it none other can be found. Yet that reality does not beget, nor is it begotten, nor does it proceed; but it is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds; thus there are distinctions in persons, and unity in nature.”

I think EO polemicists often charge the Catholic Church with this heresy for the simple fact that the only thing they know about the Catholic Church is what their anti-Catholic sources tell them. They are only aware of little snippets of Catholic teaching that their anti-Catholic sources feed them, snippets that in isolation can certainly be used to build a gross caricature of the Catholic Faith. Unfortunately, anti-Catholic polemicists are often unwilling to go beyond their anti-Catholic sources and read what the Catholic Church herself teaches in full (a common trait of polemicists, actually, whether that polemicist is non-Catholic or Catholic).

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you for identifying that, I was familiar with the red underlined portion, but had not contemplated the sentence before it. Even so, The Holy Trinity does not have origin in a primordial impersonal essence.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Why? I’m not responding to Romanides or Lossky, but an individual EO who made the claim. Your method of rhetoric is…strange.

Ask this in the original Filioque thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

Here is the deal. You have often made the charge that ‘modern EO polemicists’ make arguments similar to the Pneumatomachoi, or that ‘modern EO polemicists’ have lost touch with the teaching of the fathers. By immediately calling Eastern Orthodox positions opposed to your own position, ‘modern Eastern Orthodoxy’ or some variant thereof, you unfairly control the terms of debate (through a rhetorical device known as poisoning the well), because the immediate implication is that older Eastern Orthodoxy must teach something different. Immediately, without having to engage in any sort of rebuttal, you force the opponent to go into the defensive, because you have presented him with the impossibly daunting task of proving that his views are in line with ‘older Eastern Orthodoxy’. When presented with any sort of evidence (patristic or conciliar), you then insist that so-and-so is not interpreting that passage correctly (even when, as is the case with Palamas and Blachernae, you have not studied the related works in depth) or cast doubt on whether the documents are genuine (as you did recently in that thread on the Second Council of Constantinople).

What I want to know now is, who specifically are these modern EO who are out of touch with the faith of the fathers? Me? Hesychios? Mickey? Nine_Two? Mark of Ephesus (the poster)? Lossky? Zizioulas? Romanides? St. Justin Popovic? Florovsky? Pomazansky? Schemann? Ware? Hopko? Staniloae? Bulgakov? If it is just one individual Orthodox Christian you are talking about, then why are you generalizing about all of the Orthodox faithful? Does that not strike you as horrendously disingenuous? You have made serious charges against the Eastern Orthodox faithful, Marduk, and it is about time that you own up and either substantiate those charges or withdraw them.

You can start by pointing out which arguments against the filioque are the same as arguments employed the Pneumatomachoi against the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which you may demonstrate effectively by taking quotations from the ‘modern EO’ (bonus points for theologians) and then comparing those arguments to arguments attributed to the Pneumatomachoi by the fathers (preferably in the form of quotations from the fathers, so as to exclude all doubt). After that, let’s talk about what Palamas taught. Specifically, I want you to tell me exactly what Palamas taught about the filioque, the essence-energies distinction, and then by using the same method of comparison detailed above, show me how the modern EO are out of touch with his teachings (preferably with quotations from Palamas supplemented with commentary tracing the development of thought which led to his teachings). Then we can do the same thing with Blachernae and the Tomos of Gregory II of Constantinople.

This ought to sound reasonable, given the gravity of your charges against the ‘modern EO’.

 

[Mickey]

What I want to know now is, who specifically are these modern EO who are out of touch with the faith of the fathers?

I would say…anyone who does not agree with his interpretations.

Footnote: Modern Eastern Orthodox Polemicist = MEOP

Pronounced “Mee-op”

 

[Ignatios]

I would say…anyone who does not agree with his interpretations.

Footnote: Modern Eastern Orthodox Polemicist = MEOP

Pronounced “Mee-op”

…Or anyone who does not agree that his version of Catholicism is the true one and the version of the “absolutists”= the traditionalists = the Papal one, is the wrong one.

 

[mardukm]

Here is the deal. You have often made the charge that ‘modern EO polemicists’ make arguments similar to the Pneumatomachoi,

Yes.

or that ‘modern EO polemicists’ have lost touch with the teaching of the fathers.

Yes.

By immediately calling Eastern Orthodox positions opposed to your own position, ‘modern Eastern Orthodoxy’ or some variant thereof, you unfairly control the terms of debate (through a rhetorical device known as poisoning the well), because the immediate implication is that older Eastern Orthodoxy must teach something different. Immediately, without having to engage in any sort of rebuttal, you force the opponent to go into the defensive, because you have presented him with the impossibly daunting task of proving that his views are in line with ‘older Eastern Orthodoxy’. When presented with any sort of evidence (patristic or conciliar), you then insist that so-and-so is not interpreting that passage correctly (even when, as is the case with Palamas and Blachernae, you have not studied the related works in depth)

You using a device called demagoguery. You first use the term “modern EO polemicists,” then without skipping a beat, you attempt to make it seem like I perfectly equate that with my use of the term “modern EO’xy.” Anyone who has read what I have written over the years would know that I always distinguish between EO apologetics (which I respect, because it is a good defense of Orthodoxy) and EO anti-Catholic polemics (which is senseless, because it is based on ignorance and misunderstanding of the Catholic Faith).

In any case, you did not present a rebuttal. I have asked for specific statements from St. Palamas to support your position that distinguishes Essence/Energy within the Godhead, but all you can do is give INTERPRETATIONS of Palamas from modern EO writers.

or cast doubt on whether the documents are genuine (as you did recently in that thread on the Second Council of Constantinople).

You couldn’t even respond to why I thought it was not genuine, so there is no reason to believe it to be so, especially as other scholars have doubted the genuineness of that excerpt.

What I want to know now is, who specifically are these modern EO who are out of touch with the faith of the fathers? Me? Hesychios? Mickey? Nine_Two? Mark of Ephesus (the poster)? Lossky? Zizioulas? Romanides? St. Justin Popovic? Florovsky? Pomazansky? Schemann? Ware? Hopko? Staniloae? Bulgakov? If it is just one individual Orthodox Christian you are talking about, then why are you generalizing about all of the Orthodox faithful?

There you go again with your demagoguery. I didn’t say that modern EO are out of touch with the Fathers. I have stated that they have a development in the doctrine of Essence/Energy; I have stated that I don’t mind development of doctrine and believe it can be legitimate. The ones who are out of touch with the Fathers are the EO POLEMICISTS who use this development as a source of disunity, dogmatizing this local development in doctrine as if it can be a dogmatic basis to accuse the Latins of heresy.

Does that not strike you as horrendously disingenuous? You have made serious charges against the Eastern Orthodox faithful, Marduk, and it is about time that you own up and either substantiate those charges or withdraw them.

What is disingenuous is for you to make these stupendous generalizations about what I stated. Where have any of these names even appeared in my posts? I want to address a certain polemical argument, and you accuse of me branding all sorts of people as polemicists. That’s just pure demagoguery at its best. You attempt to digress from the issue by pretending that I am calling people names, when all I want to do is address the argument. I guess it never dawned on you that there is a distinction between addressing a polemical argument and calling people polemicists.

You can start by pointing out which arguments against the filioque are the same as arguments employed the Pneumatomachoi against the divinity of the Holy Spirit

This will require research to get specific quotes, so it will take time.

which you may demonstrate effectively by taking quotations from the ‘modern EO’ (bonus points for theologians).

You already admitted earlier that the arguments I have been addressing are the ones that (at least) St. Photius made. So no need for me to do this, unless you are admitting that your modern EO theologians are not aligned with him. So all I need to do is provide evidence for the beliefs of the Pneumatomachi, which I will do after some research.

This ought to sound reasonable, given the gravity of your charges against the ‘modern EO’.

It’s not reasonable because I have made no offensive charges against the EO that I need to substantiate. The onus is on you. All I’ve said is that there has been a development in the EO doctrine of Essence/Energies (which you have admitted elsewhere). It is YOU who is making the claim that your developed doctrine that there is an actual ontological distinction of Essence/Energy WITHIN the Godhead has been the constant teaching of the Eastern Fathers of the Church. All I’ve said is that I have not found any evidence of that from the early Fathers. YOU made the claim, so YOU back it up. I don’t want to read about your modern EO theologians’ interpretations of the Fathers. I want to see statements from the early Fathers or from Blarchanae or from St. Palamas that explictly state that there is a real distinction between Essence/Energy WITHIN the Godhead. Show me where the Fathers make a distinction of Essence/Energy APART FROM discussions on theosis or God’s interaction with CREATURES.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

It’s not reasonable because I have made no offensive charges against the EO that I need to substantiate. The onus is on you. All I’ve said is that there has been a development in the EO doctrine of Essence/Energies (which you have admitted elsewhere). It is YOU who is making the claim that your developed doctrine that there is an actual ontological distinction of Essence/Energy WITHIN the Godhead has been the constant teaching of the Eastern Fathers of the Church. All I’ve said is that I have not found any evidence of that from the early Fathers. YOU made the claim, so YOU back it up. I don’t want to read about your modern EO theologians’ interpretations of the Fathers. I want to see statements from the early Fathers or from Blarchanae or from St. Palamas that explictly state that there is a real distinction between Essence/Energy WITHIN the Godhead. Show me where the Fathers make a distinction of Essence/Energy APART FROM discussions on theosis or God’s interaction with CREATURES.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, you made the charge, so you should supply the evidence. How is postulating a distinction between the essence and energies inconsistent with what Palamas taught? This should be no challenge for you, since you claim to understand what Palamas taught. Please explain for me, exactly what Palamas taught, or admit that you do not know what he taught.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You couldn’t even respond to why I thought it was not genuine, so there is no reason to believe it to be so, especially as other scholars have doubted the genuineness of that excerpt.

Also I have responded to you in that thread and even offered to post excerpts from the acts, now that I am in possession of an English translation (until April). You have yet to respond.

Edit: My response begins here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9025173

 

[sakares2]

The Procession of the Holy Spirit could not have happened without the Begetting of the Son, Because if it is then there would have been a time where there was only Part of the Trinity. no?

Thus in this way the Son has to be generated for the Holy Spirit to Proceed from the Father, and the Holy Spirit has to Proceed for the Son to be begotten. You can’t have one without the other and have an eternal Trinity. no?

So why can it not be said that in this manner the Spirit is eternally From the Father By way of the begetting of the Son?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I wonder what the + Father, Son and Holy Spirit are thinking as they follow this discussion …

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Procession of the Holy Spirit could not have happened without the Begetting of the Son, Because if it is then there would have been a time where there was only Part of the Trinity. no?

Thus in this way the Son has to be generated for the Holy Spirit to Proceed from the Father, and the Holy Spirit has to Proceed for the Son to be begotten. You can’t have one without the other and have an eternal Trinity. no?

So why can it not be said that in this manner the Spirit is eternally From the Father By way of the begetting of the Son?

I think the problem with that logic is that it follows that it must also be true if we reverse the Son and the Spirit, (that is to say that it would be equally true to say that the Son is eternally begotten from the Father by way of the procession of the Spirit), for which we can find no patristic witness, that I can think of.

 

[sakares2]

Yes I agree it must be reversable if it is true, and that I also have not any patristic witness for it. But in the Spirit of being positive, I have found no patristic evidence against it either.

Thanks Cavaradossi