Filioque : "who proceeds from the Father and the Son"

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, I found Mardukm’s and Ghosty’s posts most helpful.

The spring-river-sea analogy is the best, IMHO. The River from which the sea forms is from the Spring and is necessary for the sea, yet it’s not it’s origin, is it? But the Sea proceeds from them as from one principle because the River through which the Sea forms is itself wholly derived from the Spring- The River and the Sea both have one origin, the Spring. The water in the sea came through the river but is ultimately from the Spring. From the view-point of the Sea, you can say that the sea came “FROM” the River and be right without meaning that the sea’s origin is the river. About the sea, you can say that it proceeds from the spring AND the River, as well as from the spring THROUGH the River.

Right, funny through, she had several analogys that were interesting. Its an easy way to remember though. .

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Clearly we are following different conversations here. Hesychios himself said to me that the filioque was confusing “to the ordinary Roman Catholic” to which I answered that the ordinary Catholic’s problem is Catechesis of the creed in its entirety not the filioque, then you told me that the Catholics do understand the Trinity aspects but impliedly, not the filioque, and I’ve objected to that assertion telling you that the Filioque has been taught and explained and understood by us.

Telling me about confusion tells me nothing. I’ve never found anything in Christianity quite so confusing as the so called “essence-energies” distinction, many questions questions I’ve asked about it about the gaps I see in it remaining still unanswered. I’ve met numerous Muslims and JW’s (even Trinitarian Christians) who having been explained to the Trinity, read it, still say that it is confusing. So what? Does not stop us from saying it because it’s still true. Those Orthodox that have engaged in dialogue with us have understood it, they have seen what it is not (origin) and we Catholics have understood when it was taught to us, something much less confusing for one who has some type of grasp about the Trinity than the Trinity is to a person who is still trying to grasp it or the Hypostatic union. What exactly is the point here? What exactly about it “confuses you” that still remains unexplained or unresolved even after hearing Catholic explanations for it and letting them speak for themselves without imposing on the Catholics apriori assumptions about what you believe it is? What holes or gaps in the explanations still remain unanswered/unexplained for you? Point them out, then perhaps we can have a dialogue about it as far as we are able.

I think RC confusion over the Filioque may be a good thing. If and when Rome decides to remove it from the Nicene Creed, it won’t be too upsetting to RC’s . . .

Blessed John Paul the Great never used the Filioque when he said Mass in Greek. The Creed without the Filioque is a valid Catholic usage (as it was throughout most of the first millennium of the united Church). No one is saying the Latin Church should not used it as a theologoumenon or theological opinion. But as a doctrine to be imposed on the Christian East and its Triadology? Not at all. Rome would do well to drop it from the Creed and return to the original Creed that was intended to express the faith of the universal Church.

Alex

 

[Contarini]

"In coming to understand the Procession of the Holy
Ghost, from the Father and the Son, we can see this
from the fact that the Son is “begotten” from the Father–
this is the first kind of procession-- the Son exists from
eternity, but was “generated” as the Word (John 1:1).
Now, the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Christ, the
Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the Spirit of Jesus (Acts, xvi,
7). These terms imply a relation of the Spirit to the Son,
which can only be a relation of origin.

Why can it only be that? We are speaking of heavenly mysteries. It seems extremely presumptuous to take simple genitives and say “they must describe a relation of origin.” He’s saying this because that’s the conclusion he needs for apologetic purposes, to defend a flawed medieval Western decision that actually went against an earlier papal ruling.

In order for something to be “sent” it must proceed.

To clarify where I’m coming from: I think the addition of the filioque was a mistake, and when I remember to do so I generally fall silent on that phrase in church. I don’t know whether the filioque is theologically correct or not. I’m quite willing to believe that it may be true in one sense and false in another, and that compromise on the point is possible. But I don’t think it belongs in the Creed. I’m hesitant to become Orthodox simply for this reason, because I am unwilling simply to write Western Christianity off (and practically speaking, to break communion with the Christians I now worship with–this is also the reason why I don’t become Catholic, though on a practical level it’s a much stronger reason not to become Orthodox).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Right- Because most Christians understand everything else the creed says apart from the filioque which brings “so much confusion”?

The difference, it seems to me, is that in other cases there was serious, open debate which resulted in a conclusion (Trinity, Christology). Sure, there were power politics involved and no doubt a lot of misunderstanding. But at the end of the day there were Councils where one side said “here’s what we believe” and the other side said, “Sorry, we can’t accept that.”

Nothing like that happened with the Filioque, at least not until Florence, by which time you had centuries of polemic and violence and misunderstanding poisoning the waters. (Of course, the Orthodox were under a lot of pressure to agree to a compromise in return for help against the Turks, although it’s not as if such pressure was absent in other Councils.) Even if you leave those factors out, the main point is that Florence wasn’t the place where the formula became part of Catholic doctrine–it had been solidly in place for centuries, meaning that Catholics had become committed to it without the proper process of debate and conciliar ratification having taken place.

The Filioque was added unilaterally at a time when East-West communication had broken down and the Papacy was developing a newly unilateral and authoritarian view of its own authority.

Florence was an ex post facto justification, and this is true of all the pro-Filioque writing that’s been done since. The best explanation for what happened originally is that the Western Church was caught up in its own parochial disputes and didn’t pay attention to the broader implications of what they were doing–and then centuries later they came up with more sophisticated ways of explaining away the huge theological difficulties raised by their hasty and injudicious action.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Contarini, have you read Gregory Palamas’ interpretation of the Filioque? He essentially provides an understanding which doesn’t involve the total rejection of the early Western Christians’ understanding of some sort of dependence relationship between the Son and Spirit. Uniquely amongst the Greek Fathers, he either quotes or independently comes up with St. Augustine’s love analogy, but draws a slightly different conclusion.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, have you read Gregory Palamas’ interpretation of the Filioque? He essentially provides an understanding which doesn’t involve the total rejection of the early Western Christians’ understanding of some sort of dependence relationship between the Son and Spirit. Uniquely amongst the Greek Fathers, he either quotes or independently comes up with St. Augustine’s love analogy, but draws a slightly different conclusion.

I’ve read him on the Holy Spirit as the “eros” of the Father–in fact, I wanted to cite that in response to another post on this thread that claimed that the East rejected the love analogy. I find Palamas quite convincing across the board–I read a good bit of him as part of a class I taught on Orthodoxy a couple of years ago, and it nearly made me become Orthodox!

I may not have read the specific discussion you have in mind, though.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’ve read him on the Holy Spirit as the “eros” of the Father–in fact, I wanted to cite that in response to another post on this thread that claimed that the East rejected the love analogy. I find Palamas quite convincing across the board–I read a good bit of him as part of a class I taught on Orthodoxy a couple of years ago, and it nearly made me become Orthodox!

I may not have read the specific discussion you have in mind, though.

I have not read the works in mind, his Apodictic Treatises, as I am unsure if they even exist in English translation, but both Fr. Meyendorff and A. Edward Siecienski reference the Apodictic Treatises in their explanations of Gregory’s understanding of the Filioque.

 

[Marybeloved]

The difference, it seems to me, is that in other cases there was serious, open debate which resulted in a conclusion (Trinity, Christology). Sure, there were power politics involved and no doubt a lot of misunderstanding. But at the end of the day there were Councils where one side said “here’s what we believe” and the other side said, “Sorry, we can’t accept that.”

Nothing like that happened with the Filioque, at least not until Florence, by which time you had centuries of polemic and violence and misunderstanding poisoning the waters. (Of course, the Orthodox were under a lot of pressure to agree to a compromise in return for help against the Turks, although it’s not as if such pressure was absent in other Councils.) Even if you leave those factors out, the main point is that Florence wasn’t the place where the formula became part of Catholic doctrine–it had been solidly in place for centuries, meaning that Catholics had become committed to it without the proper process of debate and conciliar ratification having taken place.

The Filioque was added unilaterally at a time when East-West communication had broken down and the Papacy was developing a newly unilateral and authoritarian view of its own authority.

Florence was an ex post facto justification, and this is true of all the pro-Filioque writing that’s been done since. The best explanation for what happened originally is that the Western Church was caught up in its own parochial disputes and didn’t pay attention to the broader implications of what they were doing–and then centuries later they came up with more sophisticated ways of explaining away the huge theological difficulties raised by their hasty and injudicious action.

You can’t be saying that debate is the only way of determining truth? The filioque was taught in the west even before the Nicene creed was accepted there. I mean, this is not like parliamentary systems where the soundness of a law can be seen from the quality of debate that happened or not. Do you also see the essence energies distinction of the East in similar light?

 

[Contarini]

You can’t be saying that debate is the only way of determining truth? The filioque was taught in the west even before the Nicene creed was accepted there. I mean, this is not like parliamentary systems where the soundness of a law can be seen from the quality of debate that happened or not. Do you also see the essence energies distinction of the East in similar light?

Yes, I do. If the East had put the essence/energies distinction into the Creed then the West would have a right to complain. But significantly, the East has done nothing of the sort.

I agree that parliamentary procedure is not what makes a doctrinal decision valid (a point often missed by Catholic apologists, I think, when they demand to know how the Orthodox know which Councils were correct and which weren’t). But debate is important so that the arguments can be aired and people know what the issues are. The problem, again, with the Filioque is that it was added to solve a local Western controversy without any consultation with the East. When there was debate about it (in the time of Photius), the papal decision was not to include the Filioque in the Creed (at least as used at Rome). Then, a couple centuries later, it was just added–apparently rather casually, since we don’t have a lot of record of how it was done. It seems to have simply been taken for granted, because East and West had grown so far apart.

By the time there was, again, serious debate on the issue, at Florence, the commitments on both sides were so deep that there was little chance of a reasonable discussion.

Edwin

 

[Marybeloved]

Yes, I do. If the East had put the essence/energies distinction into the Creed then the West would have a right to complain. But significantly, the East has done nothing of the sort.

I agree that parliamentary procedure is not what makes a doctrinal decision valid (a point often missed by Catholic apologists, I think, when they demand to know how the Orthodox know which Councils were correct and which weren’t). But debate is important so that the arguments can be aired and people know what the issues are. The problem, again, with the Filioque is that it was added to solve a local Western controversy without any consultation with the East. When there was debate about it (in the time of Photius), the papal decision was not to include the Filioque in the Creed (at least as used at Rome). Then, a couple centuries later, it was just added–apparently rather casually, since we don’t have a lot of record of how it was done. It seems to have simply been taken for granted, because East and West had grown so far apart.

By the time there was, again, serious debate on the issue, at Florence, the commitments on both sides were so deep that there was little chance of a reasonable discussion.

Edwin

But how would the E-E distinction be added? The filioque says “proceeds from the father and the son” This naturally fits into the creed which already speaks about the procession of the Spirit. It’s not fair to equate it to the E-E distinction in terms of a hypothetical inclusion into the creed as the creed nowhere seeks to teach about those questions but it does profess the procession of the Holy Spirit which the West has always proclaimed is from the father AND the son. And why should it matter though that one’s in the creed and another isn’t if both churches hold the two as dogma? The creed proclaims the faith and the two dogmas do constitute the faiths of the two respectively.

 

[Contarini]

But how would the E-E distinction be added? The filioque says “proceeds from the father and the son” This naturally fits into the creed which already speaks about the procession of the Spirit. It’s not fair to equate it to the E-E distinction in terms of a hypothetical inclusion into the creed as the creed nowhere seeks to teach about those questions but it does profess the procession of the Holy Spirit which the West has always proclaimed is from the father AND the son. And why should it matter though that one’s in the creed and another isn’t if both churches hold the two as dogma? The creed proclaims the faith and the two dogmas do constitute the faiths of the two respectively.

Can you point me to an Orthodox source that describes essence/energies as dogma?
The old Catholic Encyclopedia claims that they regard it as dogma, but it obviously isn’t an Orthodox source and is often overly polemical and a bit unfair in describing non-Catholic opinions.

Certainly the hesychast councils of the 14th century are accepted by the Orthodox Church. But my understanding is that these teachings are not regarded as being on the same level as the Creed. I await correction by Orthodox posters if I’m wrong.

You’re right that the essence/energies distinction wouldn’t fit as well into the present structure of the Creed as the Filioque does. I remind you that the analogy between Filioque and essence/energies was yours, not mine, originally. If the Orthodox do regard essence/energies as dogma in the same way the Trinity is, then I stand corrected.

Here’s why I think this is important: the Creed plays a unique role in stating the universal faith of the Church. There can be other doctrines and even dogmas that the Church believes, but if you don’t have to stand up and recite them every Sunday then there’s more room for interpretation. So, for instance, Catholics and Orthodox might come to a mutually agreeable conclusion about essence/energies based on a common acceptance of apophaticism. They might agree that the key point in the hesychastic controversy was the validity of hesychastic mystical experience as a genuine encounter with God, and that there are different ways to explain just how that happens. Or something of the sort. This is possible with the Filioque as well–from the Father through the Son has a lot of promise–but as long as Westerners are standing up every Sunday and saying “and from the Son” in the central, supposedly unifying statement of Christian belief, that promise is not going to be fulfilled.

I’m with David Hart–a very ecumenical and relatively pro-Western Orthodox theologian–on this one. The Filioque has to go. Not just when the Creed is recited in Greek, but from the Creed period. Catholics can still believe it–it just doesn’t belong in the Creed.

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

I honestly don’t see where it makes a difference. I tend to agree with Alex, its caused confusion. Its not a deal breaker but its is a thorn in the side and for no good reason.

If we are to conclude the filioque is valid and I’m sure it is after reading ad nauseum on it. We still come back to History and Nicene and Constantinople.

Of course I don’t see a deal breaker, but I see a point of contention and for no good reason. To say the truth is we are talking the same theology may well be a fact. However, the two interpretations cause division in particular within the laity.

When we are talking essence/energies this wouldn’t change in West/East understanding. Both are sound teaching East/West but we are talking past the Creed here. Now, we are talking not the formula or format in which the Trinity functions, but the definition of God Himself.

I’m not home so I don’t have access to my books. however this terminology really has nothing to do with the Father and Son. Or am I missing something?

I understand what Edwin is saying historically which I bought up early on. Its a valid point.

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps I’ve been asking the wrong people to explain it to me in the past.

Indeed, the nature and function of the Trinity is far beyond the capacity of the human reason. We would all have been better off not trying to “explain it”. The attempts to do so are part of what has caused divisions. Can’t some things just be left in mystery?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Yes, I found Mardukm’s and Ghosty’s posts most helpful.

The spring-river-sea analogy is the best, IMHO. The River from which the sea forms is from the Spring and is necessary for the sea, yet it’s not it’s origin, is it? But the Sea proceeds from them as from one principle because the River through which the Sea forms is itself wholly derived from the Spring- The River and the Sea both have one origin, the Spring. The water in the sea came through the river but is ultimately from the Spring. From the view-point of the Sea, you can say that the sea came “FROM” the River and be right without meaning that the sea’s origin is the river. About the sea, you can say that it proceeds from the spring AND the River, as well as from the spring THROUGH the River.

YES!!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The only issue with St John of Damascus’ analogies is that they are not the dogmas on the Trinity in the East that the Filioque is in the West.

At Florence, as the Orthodox theologian Fr. John Meyendorff said, had Rome agreed to return to the original Nicene Creed, both sides could have agreed to the common formula “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” (as a further explanation outside the Creed itself) and the Church would have been reunited. This was the minimum condition for unity that St Mark of Ephesus insisted upon and, had Rome simply returned to the earlier Creed, everything would have been OK . . .

Today, given the lengths to which RC theologians (and members on the CAF . . .) have gone to discuss and explain the Filioque, it seems that the only thing missing that would unite the Churches on Trinitarian theology once again would be if (and when) Rome went back to the original Creed that was established by Ecumenical Council (including the ratification by the then Popes of Rome) and was intended to express the common faith of the universal Church (as opposed to the Latin Church only).

Alex