Filioque (the details)

[TarkanAttila]

Until today, I was a bit confused as to how the Holy Ghost could proceed from the Father and the Son. (I am a Roman Catholic, not an Eastern.) But then I read Christopher West’s “Theology of the Body for Beginners” and it gave me a great picture:

…we can discern from revelation that the Father eternally “begets” the Son by giving himself to and for the Son. In turn, the Son (the “beloved of the Father”) eternally receives the love of the Father and eternally gives himself back to the Father. The love they share is the Holy Spirit…

So, if I understand correctly, it looks like this:

{P}
^
This is the Father

{P}—CARITAS—>{F}

The Father begets the Son by Love, and the Son receives the Father’s Love

{P}—CARITAS—>{F}
…<--------------------

The Son has love which He gives the Father, and which the Father, in turn receives.

{P}===={SS}===={F}

Their mutual love, BEGUN by the Father but certainly shared in by the Son, results directly in the Holy Spirit.

If I understand correctly, this is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

What do the Eastern Churches teach?

 

[followingtheway]

I think Eastern Catholicism compliments Roman Catholicism on matters of faith and dogma.

For Eastern Orthodox Christians…

Eastern Orthodox often refer to the Holy Spirit proceeding from “the Father through the Son,” which can be equivalent to the Catholic formula “from the Father and the Son.” Since everything the Son has is from the Father, if the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then the Son can only be spoken of as one through whom the Spirit received what he has from the Father, the ultimate principle of the Godhead. Because the formulas are equivalent, the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes: “This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed” (CCC 248).

Gotta love the Catholic Answers search bar…

But as for anyone reading this, correct if any of this information is misleading.

 

[The_Scott]

Sorry to ignore the actual question, but I always thought that, we say “who proceeds from the Father and the Son,” what we mean is that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father through the Son.” And since the Trinity has each Person as co-eternal, equally powerful, eternally inseparable, etc, the idea that the Father “over powers” the Son is not meant to be implied.

Therefore, the little drawing in the OP would show, in what I thought:

P ===== F =====> SS.

Where ===> means procession, and where P, F, and SS are co-eternal, equally powerful, etc.

Sorry not answer the question. Maybe someone can help? Either in private messages, or through here (if allowed).

 

[Anthony_V]

The Trinity is a community of love. It consists of three distinct person as one being. The nature of God is to exist-- that is, to love. We must consider existence and love as synonymous characteristics, although our own etymology and semantics would conclude otherwise.
God the Father is the lover, God the son is the beloved, and God the Holy Spirit is the love, who is a person.
The love (which is the Holy Spirit) proceeds from the lover (God the Father) through the beloved (God the Son). That’s the most basic skeleton anyway.

EDIT:
Scott beat me to it

 

[iohanne]

The Father begets the Son by Love, and the Son receives the Father’s Love…

…Their mutual love, BEGUN by the Father but certainly shared in by the Son, results directly in the Holy Spirit.

If I understand correctly, this is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

I would be very careful about how we formulate certain doctrines. I’m not even really sure if it’s possible to explain them in vernacular, non-technical language. Disagreements about something as simple as a preposition or the particular nuanced use of a verb have resulted in centuries-old and millennia-old schisms. So, might I suggest a quick reformulation of those two things that I’ve quoted from you using Western theological formulations?

The Father eternally begets the Logos as a function of His infinite intellect. The Father loves, contemplates and unites with His Son and the Son loves, worships, contemplates and unites with His Father. Their unity expresses itself as another divine Person; the Holy Spirit energetically proceeds from both as a function of both Persons’ one infinite will.

The Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Christians prefer to leave Trinitarianism as a glorious mystery and these traditions are much less likely to couch their theological positions in scholastic language but we Latins tend to think we can just enumerate the inner structure of the Triune God like it was the a theorem we learned in math class.

 

[TarkanAttila]

the idea that the Father “over powers” the Son is not meant to be implied.

Therefore, the little drawing in the OP would show, in what I thought:

P ===== F =====> SS.

Where ===> means procession, and where P, F, and SS are co-eternal, equally powerful, etc.

Sorry not answer the question. Maybe someone can help? Either in private messages, or through here (if allowed).

I really was hoping Hesychios or Cavaradossi or Mickey might be able to provide an answer, but this is still helpful nonetheless.

I think what I meant to imply that God the Father is no more or less powerful than God the Son or God the Holy Ghost. More that the Father was the “first” (however that would work) to give love, the Son was the “first” to receive it and the “second” to give it. When The Father and The Son both gave love of each other, we got the Holy Spirit.

Or something to that effect…

Whatever, the case, yes, we don’t mean to imply that God the Son is the same as God the Father. But they BOTH played an integral role in producing the Holy Spirit - The Father as giver, the Son as receiver.

And happy 500th post to me.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Christians prefer to leave Trinitarianism as a glorious mystery and these traditions are much less likely to couch their theological positions in scholastic language but we Latins tend to think we can just enumerate the inner structure of the Triune God like it was the a theorem we learned in math class.

Interestingly put!

And yes, as a Mystery, we Eastern Christians believe it cannot be fully comprehended by us as mortals in our present state, let alone explained through words.

If we are truly worthy, we will one day come to understand!

 

[Cavaradossi]

I really was hoping Hesychios or Cavaradossi or Mickey might be able to provide an answer, but this is still helpful nonetheless.

I think what I meant to imply that God the Father is no more or less powerful than God the Son or God the Holy Ghost. More that the Father was the “first” (however that would work) to give love, the Son was the “first” to receive it and the “second” to give it. When The Father and The Son both gave love of each other, we got the Holy Spirit.

Or something to that effect…

Whatever, the case, yes, we don’t mean to imply that God the Son is the same as God the Father. But they BOTH played an integral role in producing the Holy Spirit - The Father as giver, the Son as receiver.

And happy 500th post to me.

I’m slightly busy at the moment, but I’ll try to write some sort of response when I get home.

 

[TimothyH]

Interestingly put!

And yes, as a Mystery, we Eastern Christians believe it cannot be fully comprehended by us as mortals in our present state, let alone explained through words.

If we are truly worthy, we will one day come to understand!

But it’s not wrong to wonder, is it, or to ask God for light?

Could there be a moral or other real-life implication to better understanding the theology behind it from both an Eastern or Western perspective? “Theology of the Body” was mentioned in the original post and that certainly is a very practical application of very profound and deep theology.

-Tim-

 

[Aelred_Minor]

This is an old analogy and is useful in its own way especially when you want discuss the Trinity’s many reflections in creation such as the human family, as Mr. West no doubt does, but any analogy of this sort to describe the inner life of the Trinity is going to be imperfect and incomplete.

Ignoring other elements of potential imperfection or incompleteness, one big thing is that it makes it seem as though the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles. In fact, the Holy Spirit proceeds from them as though from a single principle. Thus the diagram the OP provided is misleading, as is the one in which the Holy Spirit seems to pass through the Son after first proceeding from the Father alone. Both introduce an artificial division or second step into the procession of the Holy Spirit, which in fact is a single, simple procession from the Father and the Son, wholly and completely from each equally.

The patristic formulation, more popular in the East, that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son” reflects the truth that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Son because the Father has, logically prior to this procession, handed over everything to the Son except being the Father. Thus if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then He proceeds just as much from the Son, but only because the Father has begotten the Son.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But it’s not wrong to wonder, is it, or to ask God for light?

Indeed it is not wrong at all - wonder away!

 

[The_Scott]

The Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Christians prefer to leave Trinitarianism as a glorious mystery and these traditions are much less likely to couch their theological positions in scholastic language but we Latins tend to think we can just enumerate the inner structure of the Triune God like it was the a theorem we learned in math class.

I wonder. Do you think the East would have continued this view of God’s nature (as a mystery) if they had intellectuals* like the West had? I just love hearing about the different philosophical backgrounds of Eastern Christianity from Western Christianity.

It’ll just be interesting to see what would have happened if there was a Blessed Jon Scotus of the East, or a St. Thomas Aquinas of the East. Would he have been shunned, or accepted?

Just something I like to think about.

*When I say “intellectuals,” I’m using the catch-all word for (mainly) the scholastics, and also the theological and philosophical schools of thought, such as Thomism, Scotism, and so on, that were common in the West.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I wonder. Do you think the East would have continued this view of God’s nature (as a mystery) if they had intellectuals* like the West had?

I do believe that many of the Fathers of the Church were of Eastern origin and thought.

 

[The_Scott]

I do believe that many of the Fathers of the Church were of Eastern origin and thought.

This is true. But nonetheless, the idea of, for example, the West’s technical terms and schools of thought were more in post-Schism Christianity, with the exception of Saint Augustine of Hippo (who influenced the West more than the East, I believe).

Either way, I’d hate to get off topic.

 

[iohanne]

I wonder. Do you think the East would have continued this view of God’s nature (as a mystery) if they had intellectuals* like the West had? I just love hearing about the different philosophical backgrounds of Eastern Christianity from Western Christianity.

It’ll just be interesting to see what would have happened if there was a Blessed Jon Scotus of the East, or a St. Thomas Aquinas of the East. Would he have been shunned, or accepted?

Just something I like to think about.

*When I say “intellectuals,” I’m using the catch-all word for (mainly) the scholastics, and also the theological and philosophical schools of thought, such as Thomism, Scotism, and so on, that were common in the West.

This is true. But nonetheless, the idea of, for example, the West’s technical terms and schools of thought were more in post-Schism Christianity, with the exception of Saint Augustine of Hippo (who influenced the West more than the East, I believe).

Either way, I’d hate to get off topic.

I’m not too sure the East is bereft of that. The West often gets stereotyped as being overtly scholastic and placing too large an emphasis on reason… but I think this is often exaggerated. It is the East, don’t forget, that was often racked with Christological controversies that resulted in the most ancient schisms. These controversies tended to centre around the differences in the Greek metaphysical tradition and the Syriac metaphysical tradition, the terminology that they used and their application to the Personhood of Christ. It involved nuanced, philosophical distinctions like substance/ousia/kyana, physis/natura/qnoma, subsistence/hypostasis/qnoma, prosopon/persona/parsopa, etc. Was Christ consubstantial/homoousion to the Father? Was he homoiousion? Was he heteroousion? Were there three hypostasis in the Holy Trinity or one? Was there one divine ousia or were there three? Does Christ have a divine will/thelema and a human will or is there one human-divine theandric will? Do his actions have their source in two “energies”/energeiai - a human one and a divine one - or a single, theandric energeia?

The Schoolmen are “intellectuals” yes, but they definitely do represent a later western intellectual patrimony. The eastern Fathers were just as “intellectual” just as prone to “theological hairsplitting” so to speak and were just as prodigious in their writings. St. Basil of Caesaraea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory of Nazianzen - even earlier ones like Origen. There are even Syriac theologians with whom I am less familiar but they exist and are well known to scholars among the Syriac Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox and Assyrian Christians. If you want something more contemporary to St. Thomas Aquinas’ time, there are theologians as famous as St. Gregory Palamas and there are more obscure ones like St. Nicholas Cabasilas who wrote on the Divine Liturgy, the Eucharistic sacrifice - in seemingly prophetic foresight of the future Protestants - tackled the question on how the sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy/Mass could be one and the holy Sacrifice as that of Christ on the cross in Calvary and that of the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world and that of the Eternal High Priest, the glorified and resurrected Christ in Heaven who offers his continuous self-gift to the Father in a heavenly liturgy.

The Easterners just tend to place a much larger emphasis on the greatest of our Mysteries, God Himself and the nature of the Triune God: utterly transcendent, absolutely ineffable and unspeakable, overwhelmingly incomprehensible, standing between and above being and non-being itself. Even then, there are still theologians who bicker about the energetic ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father and other such things quite beyond me to be able to comment on further.

 

[DeProfundis1]

While this isn’t the theme of the thread, it has been brought up. I think many have turned to the ideas, philosophies and formulas of man way too much. If we have been given the New Testament, and the will of God entirely in the words and actions of Christ, then why follow the philosophies of man whos pages of explaining their theory are longer than the words of Christ himself.

When Christ was going around preaching and doing miracles, he told people that they were saved by their faith, and to go sin no more. To believe in Him and follow Him. Not to create entire theologies on the essence of the Holy Spirit, (etc.), and to be saved that way. Jesus would do the same thing he did to the pharisees on their man made laws. Why can’t people see that? Are we that blind?

You can ponder in spirit these mysteries, there is at least an essance that is given to us through Christs words. But to follow the teachings of men who make something to be doctrine is not what Christ wants.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I wonder. Do you think the East would have continued this view of God’s nature (as a mystery) if they had intellectuals* like the West had? I just love hearing about the different philosophical backgrounds of Eastern Christianity from Western Christianity.

It’ll just be interesting to see what would have happened if there was a Blessed Jon Scotus of the East, or a St. Thomas Aquinas of the East. Would he have been shunned, or accepted?

Just something I like to think about.

*When I say “intellectuals,” I’m using the catch-all word for (mainly) the scholastics, and also the theological and philosophical schools of thought, such as Thomism, Scotism, and so on, that were common in the West.

Thomas Aquinas was honoured by Orthodox theologians and his moral theology was used in the East.

Scholasticism is something that has no room in the East. We have the Cappadocian and Alexandrian Fathers and they are more than sufficient!

The language of the West is confusing. If the West believes the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son - then this could have been the foundation for an agreement between East and West (as per Prof. John Meyendorff).

At no time can the inclusion of the Filioque into the Creed, a Creed intended to express the universal faith in the Trinity by the entire Church everywhere, be justified. I pray for the time when the West simply returns to the ancient Creed of the undivided Catholic Church.

Alex

 

[Genesius]

Forgive me for chiming in so late. I am fairly new to the Catholic faith (recieved in Easter 2005). Maybe I’m looking at it too simplistic but it seems pretty clear that if we believe in a triune God, and all persons of the trinity are equal, why would there even be an issue with the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son since all are divine?

In fact, it seems to me (and forgive me if it sounds too crass…I really am just trying to understand), that to actually deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father would be to deny the diety of Christ. Do I have a wrong perspective? Please do clarify things if I seem to. Again, maybe I’m just simplifying things too much. But then, I don’t claim to be a theologian.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TarkanAttila,

What you have expressed below is a good explanation of what Latin Catholics believe.

However, be careful to distinguish between the dogma, on the one hand, and the explanation of the dogma, on the other.

The dogma of the Catholic Church on the Holy Spirit is that the Holy Spirit receives his ESSENCE/SUBSTANCE from the Son by way of mediation from the Father (or, from the Father through the Son).

This belief and Faith of the undivided Church is expressed in the Latin Creed explicitly, while it is only implied in the Greek Creed.

Because of the difference in the Greek and Latin languages, the Creed was always understood by each group a little differently, though each had a thoroughly orthodox understanding.

Due to the linguistic expression of the Creed in Greek, the Greeks understood/understand the credal line at issue to mean:
The hypostasis of the Spirit is from the Father.

Due to the linguistic expression of the Creed in Latin, the latins understood/understand the credal line at issue to mean:
The ousia of the Spirit is from the Father.

One can see that while it was perfectly orthodox according to the Latins (and correctly so) to add filioque to the Creed per their own understanding (it is perfectly orthodox to say that the ousia of the Spirit is from the Father and the Son), it could not be so in the Greek understanding (it is heterodox to say that the hypostasis of the Spirit is from the Father and the Son).

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Until today, I was a bit confused as to how the Holy Ghost could proceed from the Father and the Son. (I am a Roman Catholic, not an Eastern.) But then I read Christopher West’s “Theology of the Body for Beginners” and it gave me a great picture:

So, if I understand correctly, it looks like this:

{P}
^
This is the Father

{P}—CARITAS—>{F}

The Father begets the Son by Love, and the Son receives the Father’s Love

{P}—CARITAS—>{F}
…<--------------------

The Son has love which He gives the Father, and which the Father, in turn receives.

{P}===={SS}===={F}

Their mutual love, BEGUN by the Father but certainly shared in by the Son, results directly in the Holy Spirit.

If I understand correctly, this is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

What do the Eastern Churches teach?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Forgive me for chiming in so late. I am fairly new to the Catholic faith (recieved in Easter 2005). Maybe I’m looking at it too simplistic but it seems pretty clear that if we believe in a triune God, and all persons of the trinity are equal, why would there even be an issue with the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son since all are divine?

No need to ask forgiveness. Besides, we Catholics are called to forgive as freely as we have been forgiven!

A belated welcome to the Catholic Church, and a current welcome to a favorite topic for debate, usually between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

In the Early Church, difficult principles of theology were debated and often settled via Ecumenical Council, the first of which was held in Nicea in 325. It was at this council that a profession of faith, the original Nicene Creed, was agreed and adopted. It was modified at the second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381. Language was added regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit by this council, which held that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is the version of the Creed in use to this day in Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches (including my own Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church).

With the entirety of the language of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed taken as a whole, it is understood to mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son. Eastern theological scholars point to several things to support this, including the events of Christ’s baptism by John in the Jordan, where the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove as God spoke from the Heavens declaring “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” [Matt 3:17]

The Filioque was added must later, in the late 6th century, and only in Western usage. It is often cited as a reason for “the Great Divide” of 1054 (thou shall not use the “S” word here), but there were other more profound issues indeed. The Eastern Churches argued at the time (and henceforth) that modification of the language of the Creed violated the canons of the third Ecumenical Council, prohibiting modification of the langauge of the Creed.

As an Eastern Catholic, I always chuckle at this, since the Nicene Creed is in use in the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Pope himself has recited the Nicene Creed publicly, sans filioque and in fluid Greek, and lightning did not strike him down.

All that said, your reasoning is likely equally valid and representative of Western thought, which is expressed in Roman Catholicism and to which you were exposed in your reception into the Church. FWIW - the Catholic Church has conceded that the filioque cannot be held as accurate translation of the original Greek, but can be so translated from Latin. Of course, the irony there is that the Creed was originally documented in Greek and translated to Latin. Yet another argument from the Orthodox …

Bless you in your spiritual journey!