Filioque - revisited

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dcointin,

I’ve heard the term “eternal manifestation” mentioned several times in this thread. Could anyone explain what that means and how it differs from eternal origination, and eternal procession?

“ETERNAL MANIFESTATION” refers to the Energy of the Spirit from the Father and/through the Son. This is to be distinguished from the Existence or hypostasis of the Spirit, which is from the Father alone. In the words of the Synod of Blachernae:

Indeed, the very Paraclete shines from and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’s rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us… If, in fact, it is also said by some of the saints that the Spirit proceeds “through the Son,” what is meant here is the eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son, not the purely [personal] emanation into being of the Spirit, which has its existence from the Father.

St. Palamas used the terms “hypostatic procession” and “energetic procession” to distinguish these eternal operations within the Godhead. “Eternal manifestation” is equivalent to “energetic procession.”

“ETERNAL ORIGINATION” (ekporeusai proper) refers to the hypostasis of the Spirit from the Father. It is equivalant to St. Palamas’ term “hypostatic procession.”

“ETERNAL PROCESSION” (procedit proper) refers to the Divinity of the Spirit from the Father and/through the Son. It is equivalent to “eternal manifestation” insofar as Divinity is an Energy of God according to the Greeks. The Divinity of the Spirit is not equivalent to the Person (hypostasis) of the Spirit (as Greeks will admit), so there is no danger of confusing “eternal origination” with “eternal procession” (except in polemic minds, I assume). But it must be remembered that to the Latins, Divinity is not an Energy of God, but the Essence of God.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

There is one other important note I need to add to this discussion, and it was touched upon very briefly earlier.

Brother Dcointin asked: “Do I understand you correctly that the Filioque version of the Nicene Creed is confessing that the Spirit proceeds from the hypostasis (person) of the Father?”

I responded “NO” because the debate is not about whether the Spirit proceeds from the hypostasis or the ousia of the Father, but whether the* hypostasis* or the ousia of the Spirit originates/proceeds from/through the Son.

IMO, if the debate were maintained in the context of the second proposition, the resolution of the matter is rather straightforward, and the debate would be much easier to resolve (on the popular level). However, there are indeed many Easterns who fashion the debate in terms of the first proposition, so I would like to very briefly address that here.

Easterns need to know that the first proposition (the idea that the hypostasis of Spirit proceeds from the ousia of the Father) does not come from the Latin Church. It actually came from Patriarch John Beccus of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Synod of Blachernae partly for promoting that proposition. This is evident from the fact that Mark of Ephesus, in his concise letter against the Union of Florence, does not even discuss this proposition (I mean, if the Latins at Florence were brandishing this rhetoric, Mark would have surely made note of it). The notion that the hypostasis of Spirit proceeds from the ousia of the Father (and Son) has never been part of the Latin Church’s Tradition or understanding of filioque, and it would be a mistake to accuse Latins of believing it, or to introduce the matter artificially into the discussions/dialogue/debate with the Latins.

For any who are interested, here is the text of the Synod of Blachernae’s refutation and condemnation of Patriarch John Beccus’ proposition:

To the same, who stoutly maintain that the Father by virtue of the nature — not by virtue of the hypostasis — is the Holy Spirit’s cause; the result is that they necessarily proclaim the Son as cause of the Spirit, since the Son has the same nature as the Father. At the same time, they fail to see the absurdity that results from this. For it is necessary first that the Spirit be the cause of someone, for the simple reason that it has the same nature as the Father. Secondly, the number of the cause increases, since as many hypostases as share in nature must, likewise, share in causality. Thirdly, the common essence and nature is transformed into the cause of the hypostasis, which all logic — and, along with this, nature itself — prohibits. To these, who believe in such things strange and alien to truth, we pronounce the above-recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Seamus_L]

Why does this issue of the Filioque keep coming up again and again. Correct me if I’m wrong, but outside of the Maronites, isn’t it almost non-existent in the Eastern Rites nowdays ? And since John Paul II, hasen’t it been eliminated from any mass with Eastern bishops in attendance ?
It really seems to be a non-issue, unless people have a problem with the Latin Church using it.

 

[mardukm]

Why does this issue of the Filioque keep coming up again and again. Correct me if I’m wrong, but outside of the Maronites, isn’t it almost non-existent in the Eastern Rites nowdays ? And since John Paul II, hasen’t it been eliminated from any mass with Eastern bishops in attendance ?

                           It really seems to be a non-issue, unless people have a problem with the Latin Church using it.

Unless Eastern and Oriental Catholics can respond adequately to the issues involved, our Orthodox brethren will always question the validity of our unity with our Latin brethren in the Catholic Church.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but outside of the Maronites, isn’t it almost non-existent in the Eastern Rites nowdays ?

I’d be very surprised if it’s not used by the Syro-Malabars.

 

[dcointin]

I appreciate the time everyone has taken to discuss this issue. It has proven to be far more complicated than the phrase "proceeds from the Son’ by itself would indicate! I think I need to do some serious research into underlying issues such as the development of Trinitarian theology in east and west before I can really grasp this issue, as well as a thorough study of the procession of the Spirit the fathers. Can anyone recommend a good book that explores this issue indepth?

 

[mardukm]

I appreciate the time everyone has taken to discuss this issue. It has proven to be far more complicated than the phrase "proceeds from the Son’ by itself would indicate! I think I need to do some serious research into underlying issues such as the development of Trinitarian theology in east and west before I can really grasp this issue, as well as a thorough study of the procession of the Spirit the fathers. Can anyone recommend a good book that explores this issue indepth?

I believe any investigation must start from the Official Clarification on filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

After reading a good amount Orthodox responses to this Official Clarification, I can confidently say that the remaining issue is the fact that the East does not distinguish between “cause” and “source,” whereas the West, from a scholastic viewpoint, does. The West easily comprehends that whatever is designated as “cause” does not necessarily equate to that same thing as “source” (a distinction that was affirmed at the Council of Florence, btw). This obviously comes from the Aristotelian distinction of Causes. As in so many other things, it seems to be again a mattter of language.

Wikipedia (of all places) has an amazingly good summary of the filioque issue from an historical perspective, with good references. It might be a good starting point for you:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

Blessings

 

[dcointin]

I want to thank you for posting the link to “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit” by JP2. I thought it was a wonderful essay and very helpful in understanding the Latin doctrine of the Filioque. I have to say that I have no objections to what he said, and on that basis am willing to consider myself in agreement with the Catholic Church on the issue.

 

[mardukm]

I want to thank you for posting the link to “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit” by JP2. I thought it was a wonderful essay and very helpful in understanding the Latin doctrine of the Filioque. I have to say that I have no objections to what he said, and on that basis am willing to consider myself in agreement with the Catholic Church on the issue.

:hug3:

Now, let me focus on the Infallibility thread.

Abundant blessings

 

[steve_b]

In any case, the amount of vitriol that the EO in particular expend when dealing with what really is a very simple issue never ceases to amaze me. (I often wonder why the same vitriol is not present over the addition of “Deum de Deo” as well.)

Don’t you mean the failure to delete it? It was, after all, in the Creed of Nicea.

dvdjs,

I didn’t realize the phrase “God from God” was an issue also in the filioque debate. Could you summarize what the issue is?

Thanks in advance

 

[Cyprian1]

As is usual in threads on the Filioque, the main stumbling block for the Orthodox on this issue is ignored, which is the dogmatic declarations of the western councils of Lyons and Florence that the Holy Spirit proceeds “eternally”, “equally”, and “as from one principle” from the Father and the Son. That is the eternal double procession, pure and simple. It derives from Anselm’s treatise, where he explicitly says that the Father and the Son “as God” spirate the Holy Spirit, thus dividing up the Trinity in a way unthinkable to the Fathers. Thus, yes, prior to Lyons and Florence it was possible to interpret the clause in an orthodox sense, as did St. Maximus. It is not possible to do so if Lyons and Florence are to be adhered to. Thus, that language in Lyons and Florence must be rejected.

 

[steve_b]

As is usual in threads on the Filioque, the main stumbling block for the Orthodox on this issue is ignored, which is the dogmatic declarations of the western councils of Lyons and Florence that the Holy Spirit proceeds “eternally”, “equally”, and “as from one principle” from the Father and the Son. That is the eternal double procession, pure and simple. It derives from Anselm’s treatise, where he explicitly says that the Father and the Son “as God” spirate the Holy Spirit, thus dividing up the Trinity in a way unthinkable to the Fathers. Thus, yes, prior to Lyons and Florence it was possible to interpret the clause in an orthodox sense, as did St. Maximus. It is not possible to do so if Lyons and Florence are to be adhered to. Thus, that language in Lyons and Florence must be rejected.

Dual procession is orthodox.
**Dual procession ****≠ **dual source

 

[Cyprian1]

Dual procession is orthodox.
**Dual procession ****≠ **dual source

For the Orthodox, “procession” means procession from the source (which, when speaking of eternal actions, is the only meaningful sense of “procession”; nothing “proceeds” eternally from something which is not its source), therefore “dual (eternal) procession” does equal “dual source”. At any rate, you have not addressed in your post what the Florentine language of eternal procession “equally” from the Father and the Son means.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cyprian1,

As is usual in threads on the Filioque, the main stumbling block for the Orthodox on this issue is ignored,

Thank you for your perspective, but this discussion has not ignored that issue, as I hope my explanation below will evince. But before I begin, it is critical for you to understand that when the Latins refer to Procession, they are referring to the Divine Essence of the Spirit, not the Divine Hypostasis of the Spirit.

which is the dogmatic declarations of the western councils of Lyons and Florence that the Holy Spirit proceeds “eternally”

I see you read a lot of modern EO works which claim that the Spirit’s relationship to the Son in the Procession is not eternal, but only temporal. I assume you are an Eastern Catholic, judging from your POV, so I would advise you to read the Tomos of Blachernae and St. Gregory Palamas, to see the error of modern EO claims on the matter.

“equally”,

Remember that we are speaking of the Divine Essence of the Spirit, not His Divine Hypostasis. It is this Essence that is communicated to the Spirit from the Father and the Son (or, from the Father through the Son, if you like). Hence, the appropriateness of the word “equally.” Or are you denying that the Essence of the Son is not the same as (or equal to) the Essence of the Father?

and “as from one principle” from the Father and the Son.

Indeed, this very clause refutes your claim that the Latins teach “double procession.”

That is the eternal double procession, pure and simple.

The heresy of double procession is that the hypostasis of the Spirit originates from two Sources or principles. That’s not what the theology on filioque teaches, as explained above. The theology on filioque is very concisely expressed by Pope St. Athansius of Alexandria (who I quoted earlier, but I will repeat it here for your benefit):
“He [the Son], according to you [Arians], of what is He [the Son] **partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself partakes from the Son…Therefore, it is the Father that He **[the Son] partakes. But this which is partaken, what is it or whence? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him, and no longer can He be called Son of the Father…It follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the Essence of the Father.”
St. Athanasius of Alexandria (First Discourse Against the Arians, Chap. 5).

It derives from Anselm’s treatise, where he explicitly says that the Father and the Son “as God” spirate the Holy Spirit,

By using the clause “as God” Anselm is obviously and unambiguously referring to the divine Essence, not the divine Hypostasis.

thus dividing up the Trinity in a way unthinkable to the Fathers.

Anselm’s teaching is not unthinkable to the Fathers. In fact, it is everywhere reflected in the Fathers. What is unthinkable is the misinterpretation non-Latins have foisted upon the Latin teaching on filioque.

Thus, yes, prior to Lyons and Florence it was possible to interpret the clause in an orthodox sense, as did St. Maximus. It is not possible to do so if Lyons and Florence are to be adhered to. Thus, that language in Lyons and Florence must be rejected.

What must be rejected are the misinterpretations imposed upon the Latin teaching by non-Latins. One just needs to shift one’s thinking from the context of the Divine Hypostasis to the context of the Divine Essence. I’m not saying you have to adopt that shift in thinking as an Eastern; all I’m saying is that when you are considering matters involving filioque you should temporarily make that shift if you want to understand our Latin brethren.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

For the Orthodox, “procession” means procession from the source (which, when speaking of eternal actions, is the only meaningful sense of “procession”; nothing “proceeds” eternally from something which is not its source), therefore “dual (eternal) procession” does equal “dual source”. At any rate, you have not addressed in your post what the Florentine language of eternal procession “equally” from the Father and the Son means.

I hope Marduk’s response, covered your concerns. He may have also refered readers to the following explanation in a previous post, regarding how Latins use “proceed” vs how Greeks use proceed.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

 

[dcointin]

I think it’s important to remember that there can be, to use a phrase by Fr. Thomas J. Loya, differences in “emphasis and expression” that are not differences in dogma. You’ll find these differences even among the fathers, particularly of different times and places, but all of which are accepted as orthodox. This can be difficult to discern, and requires a thorough study of different theological traditions, but it’s necessary if we are to prevent such differences from becoming schisms. Martin Luther, who failed to understand this, said in his famous speach at the Diet of Worms: “for I believe neither in the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves,” and thus was born the Protestant Reformation. East and west in particular have different theological traditions, and unfortunately very few people understood both until recent times (most notably St. Maximos the Confessor), which was perhaps the greatest reason for the Catholic and Orthodox schism. I highly recommend reading St. Maximos’s “Letter to Marinus” where he translates so to speak the western theology into eastern theology and explains what is and is not meant by the Filioque. I would also read the link to Pope John Paul II’s essay posted by Mardukm which is an excellent survey of the topic. After reading these, please let us know if you still see dogmatic differences between both traditions.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Unless Eastern and Oriental Catholics can respond adequately to the issues involved, our Orthodox brethren will always question the validity of our unity with our Latin brethren in the Catholic Church.

Blessings

Sadly, I agree with you.

We will be debating this from now till The Second Coming.

I guess the more we discuss this, though, the more we will foster “open hearts and open minds” that will be more amenable to considering some sort of “Reunification.”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I think it’s important to remember that there can be, to use a phrase by Fr. Thomas J. Loya, differences in “emphasis and expression” that are not differences in dogma. You’ll find these differences even among the fathers, particularly of different times and places, but all of which are accepted as orthodox. This can be difficult to discern, and requires a thorough study of different theological traditions, but it’s necessary if we are to prevent such differences from becoming schisms. Martin Luther, who failed to understand this, said in his famous speach at the Diet of Worms: “for I believe neither in the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves,” and thus was born the Protestant Reformation. East and west in particular have different theological traditions, and unfortunately very few people understood both until recent times (most notably St. Maximos the Confessor), which was perhaps the greatest reason for the Catholic and Orthodox schism. I highly recommend reading St. Maximos’s “Letter to Marinus” where he translates so to speak the western theology into eastern theology and explains what is and is not meant by the Filioque. I would also read the link to Pope John Paul II’s essay posted by Mardukm which is an excellent survey of the topic. After reading these, please let us know if you still see dogmatic differences between both traditions.

I agree with you about the difference between “emphasis and expression” and “dogma.” I listen to Loya occassionally and he is a DEVOUT EC. He knows whereof he is talking about.

 

[Diak]

we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

From Article I of the Union of Brest formalizing communion between the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. It was not rejected, nor was any revision mandated by Rome as a condition of communion of the UGCC. It stands to this very day, as most recently reminded by +John Paul II of blessed memory in his Apostolic Letter on the Fourth Centenary of the Union of Brest, November 12, 1995.