Filioque

[RyanBlack]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

The problem I see with your explanation is that it does not take into account the purpose of the Second Ecumenical Council in adding the phrase “proceeds from the Father.” The primary purpose of the Council was to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. EVERYONE understood that this was the main impetus for the convention of the Council. The purpose of the phrase at issue was not to primarily teach the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, because the Pneumatomachi believed just as much. Nor was it the purpose of the Second Ecumenical Council to teach that the Father is the arche of the Trinity, a teaching that was also shared by both the Pneumatomachi and the Arians. The purpose of the Council was to defend the DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. This was the thing that the Pneumatomachi, and certain Arians were denying, so this was the matter that needed to be addressed.

Having this understanding, when the Latins received the Creed of Constantinople, and they utilized procedit to translate ekporeusai, they knew, correctly, that they were preserving the actual and true intent of the Fathers of the Second Ecum.

So even though the language, and even meaning, of the phrase was different between the Greeks and Latins, the phrase - IN EITHER LANGUAGE - perfectly preserved the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecum - which was to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

It was only later that certain Easterns, perhaps due to the widening cultural chasm where fewer and fewer Greeks understood Latin and vice-versa, began to insist on what is actually only a secondary meaning of the phrase at issue (at least as far as the Fathers of the Second Ecum were concerned). To repeat, the phrase “proceeds from the Father” was not added by the Fathers of the Second Ecum to insist on the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, nor to insist on the arche of the Father (for neither of those teachings were challenged by the Pneumatomachi). Rather, they used the phrase to insist on the DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. This true and original meaning has ALWAYS been preserved by the Latin phraseology.

So, from the perspective of the Fathers of the Second Ecum, what is this “difference” that needs to be reconciled?

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, if you read the Theological Orations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who led the Second Ecumenical Council, it is quite clear that the teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father does indeed address the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, and that there were heretics who were challenging the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

I do not quarrel with the claim that upholding the divinity of the Holy Spirit was the primary concern of the Second Ecumenical Council. Neither do I disagree with the claim that for Latins, the filioque primarily concerns the consubstantiality of the three persons. However, I entirely disagree with the claim that the phrase “who proceeds from the Father” was not added to insist on the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father. The wording “the Lord, the Giver of life” (only God is Lord and only God can give life), and “who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified” (only God is worshipped) demonstrate the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The phrase “who proceeds from the Father” corresponds to the phrase “eternally begotten of the Father,” i.e., just as the Son originates from the Father by means of being begotten, the Holy Spirit originates from the Father by way of procession. A reading of the Fifth Theological Oration of St. Gregory of Nazianzus makes this quite clear, as it also makes quite clear that there were heretics who specifically denied the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

 

[JRKH]

If it were in fact a heresy then perhaps it may affect ones walk with Christ…

As we need the Church also and to unite with it along with our love or belief in Christ…

Heresy is a deviation from truth…

So if we follow Heresy than i would say we werent following the Truth or True Church…

The Orthodox believe its a heresy…

So whattya do…

Well I’ll tell you what I do.
I accept that, regardless of which form is correct (or “more correct”), that both express the fact that the Holy Spirit comes from and is God. I accept that, as another expressed above, that the intent of the council in writing the creed was to clarify that the Holy Spirit is Divine.
I praise God in his most Glorious name, and in all three persons. I thank Him for His many blessings and then I try to serve Him in Love and I thank Him for the gift of sending us the Holy Spirit, regardless of how He did it…
Finally, and in summary, I do not let the detail of precisely how the Holy Spirit proceeds disturb my peace in Christ.

im trying to learn if it really isnt a heresy which will make me ignore some Orthodox priests who breath down my neck claiming it to be a heresy and so i can more comfortable in the Catholic Church knowing i AM following and believing in the TRUTH

Peace

Since this does seem to disturb your peace, and obviously the peace of others, then you do need to pursue it. The discussion here has been most enlightening. Indeed I am learning quite a bit from the discussion here. Most interesting.

But in the end, as Gary said, we’ll be chasing this rabbit around a while, and I believe that ultimately it won’t be us here who make the ultimate determination but the Church herself in discussions between Rome and Constantinople.

Be at peace

James

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Well I’ll tell you what I do.
I accept that, regardless of which form is correct (or “more correct”), that both express the fact that the Holy Spirit comes from and is God. I accept that, as another expressed above, that the intent of the council in writing the creed was to clarify that the Holy Spirit is Divine.
I praise God in his most Glorious name, and in all three persons. I thank Him for His many blessings and then I try to serve Him in Love and I thank Him for the gift of sending us the Holy Spirit, regardless of how He did it…
Finally, and in summary, I do not let the detail of precisely how the Holy Spirit proceeds disturb my peace in Christ.

Since this does seem to disturb your peace, and obviously the peace of others, then you do need to pursue it. The discussion here has been most enlightening. Indeed I am learning quite a bit from the discussion here. Most interesting.

But in the end, as Gary said, we’ll be chasing this rabbit around a while, and I believe that ultimately it won’t be us here who make the ultimate determination but the Church herself in discussions between Rome and Constantinople.

Be at peace

James

I am happy i asked about this anyway as from reading some of the links ive learnt more and am happy to hear Clarification about it from the Catholic perspective.

 

[centurionguard]

I’ve always seen the The Most Holy Trinity as an ineffable Mystery even when taking into serious consideration all the profound teachings of the Church and all the topics of the Saints saying the Holy Spirit is divisible or having his origin from Jesus the Son of God and/or the Heavenly Father.

Being a Holy Mystery its really not meant to be fully understood, but best left reserved to Faith under the auspices of Humility alone.

Its difficult enough wrapping your head around the seemingly profound smallness of the microscopic sub-atomic world in its finiteness let alone things bigger than an atom itself.

 

[JRKH]

I’ve always seen the The Most Holy Trinity as an ineffable Mystery even when taking into serious consideration all the profound teachings of the Church and all the topics of the Saints saying the Holy Spirit is divisible or having his origin from Jesus the Son of God and/or the Heavenly Father.

Being a Holy Mystery its really not meant to be fully understood, but best left reserved to Faith under the auspices of Humility alone.

Its difficult enough wrapping your head around the seemingly profound smallness of the microscopic sub-atomic world in its finiteness let alone things bigger than an atom itself.

Absolutely the best summary of the matter I have read…

Peace
James

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The problem seems to be that in Greek, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, has a different meaning from qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Ἐκπορευόμενον refers only to the procession of the person (ὑπόστᾰσις) of the Holy Spirit. The Romans attempt to justify the filioque by saying that qui ex Patre Filioque procedit refers to how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same essence (οὐσία), an inclusion which is claimed to have been used to defeat the Arian Heresy in the West. The problem with that is then the Creed is not understood in the same way (referring only to the procession and begetting of the persons in the Greek, not the essence of the Holy Spirit and the Son). I’m really unsure as to how this difference can be reconciled.

What about the possibility of modifying the creed so that it could say ‘From the Father through the Son’ which would be acceptable to both sides?

 

[GaryTaylor]

What about the possibility of modifying the creed so that it could say ‘From the Father through the Son’ which would be acceptable to both sides?

You would think it would make the most sense. However, one can’t under-estimate how hard-headed man can be.

Peace

 

[FabiusMaximus]

You would think it would make the most sense. However, one can’t under-estimate how hard-headed man can be.

Peace

Haha I would know, I’m one of those hard-headed men .

 

[GaryTaylor]

Haha I would know, I’m one of those hard-headed men .

LOL…Yes, but you have an Open Mind, and that is all thats required.

Peace

 

[Nicea325]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

To be more succinct, what I’m saying is that if we all focus on the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecum, then there will no longer be any “difference.”

A non-Christian can go to a Latin Church and ask, “Why did the Second Ecum add these extra words about the Holy Spirit to the Nicene Creed?” The Latin responds, “It was to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit.” The same non-Christian can go to a Greek Church and ask the same question, and he/she will get the same response, “It was to defend the divnity of the Holy Spirit.”

If the non-Christian notices a difference in the language, anyone in either Church can unanimously say, “we each have our different ways of expressing it, but we are all expressing the same thing - that the Holy Spirit is God.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Exactly! Expressed differently,but defending the Holy Spirit is God. For example, at work,I can say something in English and yet translate it differently in Spanish,but the meaning and understanding is still the same via a different language. Granted, one must understand both languages in order to understand.

 

[Nicea325]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

The problem I see with your explanation is that it does not take into account the purpose of the Second Ecumenical Council in adding the phrase “proceeds from the Father.” The primary purpose of the Council was to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. EVERYONE understood that this was the main impetus for the convention of the Council. The purpose of the phrase at issue was not to primarily teach the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, because the Pneumatomachi believed just as much. Nor was it the purpose of the Second Ecumenical Council to teach that the Father is the arche of the Trinity, a teaching that was also shared by both the Pneumatomachi and the Arians. The purpose of the Council was to defend the DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. This was the thing that the Pneumatomachi, and certain Arians were denying, so this was the matter that needed to be addressed.

Having this understanding, when the Latins received the Creed of Constantinople, and they utilized procedit to translate ekporeusai, they knew, correctly, that they were preserving the actual and true intent of the Fathers of the Second Ecum.

So even though the language, and even meaning, of the phrase was different between the Greeks and Latins, the phrase - IN EITHER LANGUAGE - perfectly preserved the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecum - which was to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

It was only later that certain Easterns, perhaps due to the widening cultural chasm where fewer and fewer Greeks understood Latin and vice-versa, began to insist on what is actually only a secondary meaning of the phrase at issue (at least as far as the Fathers of the Second Ecum were concerned). To repeat, the phrase “proceeds from the Father” was not added by the Fathers of the Second Ecum to insist on the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, nor to insist on the arche of the Father (for neither of those teachings were challenged by the Pneumatomachi). Rather, they used the phrase to insist on the DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. This true and original meaning has ALWAYS been preserved by the Latin phraseology.

So, from the perspective of the Fathers of the Second Ecum, what is this “difference” that needs to be reconciled?

Blessings,
Marduk

I agree. I think many Easterners see the filioque and automatically assume it is heretical,which is far from the truth. One needs to go much deeper and understand why it was used in Latin.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What about the possibility of modifying the creed so that it could say ‘From the Father through the Son’ which would be acceptable to both sides?

Whose Creed is going to be modified? Certainly, the Orthodox would not accept modifying the Greek version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ryan,

Thank you for revisiting this issue. I think I had interrupted our original discussion on this after I left due to real-world obligations, did not return for a while, and forgot about it.

Well, if you read the Theological Orations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who led the Second Ecumenical Council, it is quite clear that the teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father does indeed address the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, and that there were heretics who were challenging the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

Can you please be more specific who these heretics were? I am not aware of any heretical group in the early Church that did not at the very least admit that the Holy Spirit was a creature of the Father through the Son. I am aware of the heresy, of which even St. John Damascene speaks, that claimed the Holy Spirit was a creature generated from the Son, but this was always in reference to the Son receiving such power from the Father, the Father always the arche, and the ultimate source of all things in the Trinity.

I do not quarrel with the claim that upholding the divinity of the Holy Spirit was the primary concern of the Second Ecumenical Council. Neither do I disagree with the claim that for Latins, the filioque primarily concerns the consubstantiality of the three persons. However, I entirely disagree with the claim that the phrase “who proceeds from the Father” was not added to insist on the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father. The wording “the Lord, the Giver of life” (only God is Lord and only God can give life), and “who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified” (only God is worshipped) demonstrate the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The phrase “who proceeds from the Father” corresponds to the phrase “eternally begotten of the Father,” i.e., just as the Son originates from the Father by means of being begotten, the Holy Spirit originates from the Father by way of procession. A reading of the Fifth Theological Oration of St. Gregory of Nazianzus makes this quite clear, as it also makes quite clear that there were heretics who specifically denied the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

I’ve never claimed that the phrase “proceeds from the Father” absolutely does not have a reference to the origin of the Holy Spirit. All I’ve ever claimed was that the addition of this phrase was not primarily to insist on the origin of the Holy Spirit of the Father, but rather to insist on his divinity.

The terms “Generation” and “Procession” were utilized by the Fathers in specific opposition to the mere idea of “creation.” These terms, while indeed implying the concept of origination from the Father, were in fact utilized by the early Church primarily to insist that the Son and Holy Spirit were not created beings, but were divine – i.e., of one Essence/Substance with the Father.

Prior to the dogmatic addition of this phrase “proceeds from the Father” into the Creed by the Second Ecum, at least 3 other LOCAL Creeds had already utilized the phrase, and with the intention specified above. The problem was that the Pneumatomachi took the phrase and misinterpreted it to mean that the Holy Spirit was either subordinate to the Father and Son, or was a mere creature. It was the same with the term “begotten.” To the orthodox Fathers, the term was sufficient to denote the co-divinity of the Son with the Father, but Arians misinterpreted it to mean that the Son was either subordinate to the Father, or was a mere creature.

Read any early Church documents on the use of the terms “Begotten” and “Procession,” and you will see the truth of this. While these terms certainly do imply origination from the Father, their primary purpose has always been to denote the co-divinity of the Father and Son (with respect to “Begotten”) and the co-divinity of the Father with the Holy Spirit (with respect to “Procession”). Additional terms and phrases were added to the Creed only when it was discovered that many were misinterpreting the original orthodox intention of these terms.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

Whose Creed is going to be modified? Certainly, the Orthodox would not accept modifying the Greek version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Well said. But I think perhaps brother FabiusMaximus was referring to another Ecumenical Council, which would modify the Creed for EVERYONE.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Whose Creed is going to be modified? Certainly, the Orthodox would not accept modifying the Greek version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

As Marduk mentioned, I was thinking that both sides might modify the Creed, in both versions, to add ‘through the Son’, via an ecumenical council.

 

[Cavaradossi]

As Marduk mentioned, I was thinking that both sides might modify the Creed, in both versions, to add ‘through the Son’, via an ecumenical council.

Honestly? I think that’s wishful thinking. Nobody in the Eastern Orthodox Church would be too keen on rephrasing the Creed. The same way that the EO won’t rephrase the Chacledonian definition and the OO won’t accept the Tome of Leo, I don’t think the EO will want to change the wording of the Creed simply because the Christian West decided to do so after nearly 1000 years (let us remember that the filioque wasn’t used in Rome for quite some time).

 

[Bezant]

Is it correct to say that the Filioque in the Creed-

If it is said in Greek is a heresy

But in the Latin version it is not a heresy

What do u think about this?

On one hand, that East and West are tripping. On the other, Christology and Trinitarian doctrine are such a technical nightmare that the slightest change impacts every other theology.

I get the impression that the actual issue was tug-of-war. Rome was trying to assert its authority, and the East said, “OI! You never asked us!”

 

[RyanBlack]

Dear brother Ryan,

Thank you for revisiting this issue. I think I had interrupted our original discussion on this after I left due to real-world obligations, did not return for a while, and forgot about it.

Can you please be more specific who these heretics were? I am not aware of any heretical group in the early Church that did not at the very least admit that the Holy Spirit was a creature of the Father through the Son. I am aware of the heresy, of which even St. John Damascene speaks, that claimed the Holy Spirit was a creature generated from the Son, but this was always in reference to the Son receiving such power from the Father, the Father always the arche, and the ultimate source of all things in the Trinity.

I’ve never claimed that the phrase “proceeds from the Father” absolutely does not have a reference to the origin of the Holy Spirit. All I’ve ever claimed was that the addition of this phrase was not primarily to insist on the origin of the Holy Spirit of the Father, but rather to insist on his divinity.

The terms “Generation” and “Procession” were utilized by the Fathers in specific opposition to the mere idea of “creation.” These terms, while indeed implying the concept of origination from the Father, were in fact utilized by the early Church primarily to insist that the Son and Holy Spirit were not created beings, but were divine – i.e., of one Essence/Substance with the Father.

Prior to the dogmatic addition of this phrase “proceeds from the Father” into the Creed by the Second Ecum, at least 3 other LOCAL Creeds had already utilized the phrase, and with the intention specified above. The problem was that the Pneumatomachi took the phrase and misinterpreted it to mean that the Holy Spirit was either subordinate to the Father and Son, or was a mere creature. It was the same with the term “begotten.” To the orthodox Fathers, the term was sufficient to denote the co-divinity of the Son with the Father, but Arians misinterpreted it to mean that the Son was either subordinate to the Father, or was a mere creature.

Read any early Church documents on the use of the terms “Begotten” and “Procession,” and you will see the truth of this. While these terms certainly do imply origination from the Father, their primary purpose has always been to denote the co-divinity of the Father and Son (with respect to “Begotten”) and the co-divinity of the Father with the Holy Spirit (with respect to “Procession”). Additional terms and phrases were added to the Creed only when it was discovered that many were misinterpreting the original orthodox intention of these terms.

Blessings,
Marduk

The heretics who denied the origin of the Holy Spirit from the divine life of the Father were certain Arians or Semi-Arians. Their claims are refuted in the Fifth Theological Oration of St. Gregory of Nazianzus.

I maintain my position that the language concerning the begetting of the Son by the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father relates primarily to the manner in which they originate within the divine life of the Father, while the language of consubstantiality (in reference to the Son at the Council of Nicea, and in reference to the Spirit in the writings of numerous Church Fathers and in local synods), together with other creedal words and phrases such as “Lord,” “the only Son of God,” “the Giver of Life,” and “who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified” affirm the co-divinity of the Son and the Spirit with the Father. This is consistent with what I learned in my theological studies. Furthermore, I believe that the Theological Orations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who is known as Gregory the Theologian primarily because of his teachings on the Trinity, clearly shows that the language of begotten in reference to the
Son and procession in relationship to the Spirit primarily concerns the relationships among the three Divine Persons and the manner in which the Son and the Spirit originate from the Father, while the language of consubstantiality is the language used to affirm their co-divinity.

I don’t really have the desire or the time to re-debate this issue to the extent to which we did a few months ago, but I believe that I have stated my position clearly on the page linked below, in posts 164 and 165.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=553369&page=11

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Hi Coptic Christian and everyone else

I read that article/link about the filioque-

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx

It was good,i was wondering if you know about the Eigth council according to Orthdoxy 880,i heard that it actually condemned the use of filioque? and the west agreed to it?

I see what it means about using an ‘organic’ approach to insertions of the creed

but with the Constant(name removed by moderator)le insertion about the Holy Spirit i think i read that it was accepted Universaly at the Ecu Council of Chalcedon 451

but with the filioque ,was it ever recognised and accepted by the Universal Church at an Ecumenical council?

i dont think it was if i read correctly ,but on the other hand at the Eighth Ecu Council of 880 it was actually condemned by East and West and not accepted.

Anyone help with this?

not sure if im making sense…

Thanks

 

[Paul_theApostle]

So although Constantinople I organically inserted the extra Holy Spirit phrase ,eventually it was recognised by an Ecumenical Council 451

But although the Latins have organically inserted Filioque to the Constantinople creed,it has not been accepted by an Ecumenical Council ,but actually rather condemned at 880 (Orthodox 8th Council)

I know the Catholics dont recognise this 880 council with Photios

But on the Orthodox side of things ,can we say that the filioque issue was dealt with and put to rest having been condemned at 880 which is Ecumenical according to Orthodoxy.

Lord have mercy