Fr. Hopko on the filioque

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_J

Guest
This is from the paper “Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time” (Woodstock Forum, September 25, 2005) by Father Thomas Hopko (an Orthodox priest):
He [the pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son” only in relation to God’s saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not “from both as from one" (ab utroque sicut ab uno).
Click to expand...
What I find interesting about this quotation is that Fr. Hopko doesn’t absolutely insist on Catholics removing the filioque from the creed.

Any thoughts? (I direct this question primarily to Catholics and Orthodox, but Protestants are perfectly welcome to chime in as well.)
 
Peter_J said:
This is from the paper “Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time” (Woodstock Forum, September 25, 2005) by Father Thomas Hopko (an Orthodox priest):

What I find interesting about this quotation is that Fr. Hopko doesn’t absolutely insist on Catholics removing the filioque from the creed.

Any thoughts? (I direct this question primarily to Catholics and Orthodox, but Protestants are perfectly welcome to chime in as well.)
Click to expand...
Dear Peter,

Both Filioque and Per Filium have strong background in the bible, especially the Gospel of John. I think they are both correct theologically. The difference is only a matter of theological expression. I agree with St. Maximus Confessor from the 7th Century. I don’t mind reciting the apostle creed with or without the Filioque.
 
swariffin said:
I don’t mind reciting the apostle creed with or without the Filioque.
Click to expand...
If most Catholics were like you, then Fr. Hopko’s idea probably wouldn’t be necessary. But in fact if the Pope were to push for Catholics to say the creed without the filioque, he would (I believe) meet with a lot of resistance.
 
I believe all good and loyal Catholics follow the lead of their Bishops especially the Pope.
 
Chellow said:
I believe all good and loyal Catholics follow the lead of their Bishops especially the Pope.
Click to expand...
Well I never said that Charlemagne was a good and loyal Catholic (although now that it’s come up, I do think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, vis-à-vis conscience).

But let me ask you this: in conversations about the filioque, how often do you hear Catholics draw a distinction between, on the one hand, the Catholic position that the Pope can authorize a change in the Creed, and, on the other hand, the Protestant position that no such authorization is even necessary? Not very often, I’m guessing.
 
It is a compromise in one sense, but a deceptive one. A procession according to the economy of salvation, rather than in essence, is NOT the meaning of the “filioque” in the Latin creed; Hopko’s solution contradicts several Catholic councils.

Of course, this is coming from a paper that insists that Roman Catholics reject 1,200 years of Catholic ecumenical councils and dogma, and abandon their ancient liturgical traditions in favor of Byzantine ones (with some “pastoral” exceptions for resistant bishops).

Yeah, “compromise.” :rolleyes: As difficult as the plight of Eastern Catholics has been, they were never expected to undergo such a complete denial of their heritage and distinctiveness.
 
adventistnomore said:
It is a compromise in one sense, but a deceptive one. A procession according to the economy of salvation, rather than in essence, is NOT the meaning of the “filioque” in the Latin creed; Hopko’s solution contradicts several Catholic councils.
Click to expand...
The idea that the procession is NOT one of essence is not present in ANY of the early Fathers East, West and Orient (at least not in the Fathers before the 6th century). However, the idea that the procession is one of BOTH essence and economy is present. For Fr. Hopko to suggest that we should neglect one part of the patristic witness in favor of another is bad judgment, I think.

Orthodox often cite statements (which are few) to the effect that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son. But these statements are in the context of fighting the heresy that the Spirit was a created being, created by the Son - nothing more nothing less. To extrapolate that to a statement that the Son has nothing to do with the Procession of the Spirit’s essence from the Father is nonsense. For the very SAME Fathers who state “the Spirit does not proceed from the Son” to fight the heresy mentioned above, ALSO state in other places that the Spirit’s essence proceeds from the Father AND the Son or THROUGH the Son. Do you see the difference between the heretical statement being denied by the Fathers, and the orthodox Catholic statement being proposed by those same Fathers?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I have a big theological problem with this statement:
that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son” only in relation to God’s saving dispensation in the world.
Click to expand...
This seems to assume that the Procession occurred at some time in the past, and later on, the Holy Spirit assumes a role in creation.

However:
  1. the Procession occurs in eternity where there IS no time. From the perspective of eternity, every moment is NOW in earthly time. Thus, the Procession occurs at the very same “time” as the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son in relation to the economy of salvation.
  2. God does not change. His Purpose IS His Being. From the very “moment” of the Procession, the Holy Spirit “immediately” assumes His role in the economy of salvation. That is His purpose, His role in the Godhead, His very Being and reason for Being. The procession of His Essence from the Father is at once identical to His Procession through the Son in the economy of salvation. They cannot be separated. In other words, the Procession of the Spirit from the Father cannot be distinguished ontologically from the procession of the Spirit through the Son in the economy of salvation.
Consider this image as an aid:

Imagine Jesus Christ incarnate, fully God, fully Man, for the sake of our salvation.

Place an image of God the Father over Jesus Christ, completely enveloping Him (like putting a plastic bag over an object).

Imagine a central point in God the Father that is coterminous (identical in location) to a central point in Jesus Christ.

Imagine the Holy Spirit originating/proceeding from this central point of the Father. SIMULTANEOUSLY, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the central point of the Son.

Proceeding from the Father through the Son in eternity AND proceeding through the Son in time IS ONE INSEPARABLE ACTION of the Godhead.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I’m still trying to figure out the difference between “begotten” and “proceeds”. :confused:

Jesus is “begotten”, but the Holy Spirit “proceeds”. 🤷
 
Dear brother Charlie,
Charlie_Zeaiter said:
I’m still trying to figure out the difference between “begotten” and “proceeds”. :confused:

Jesus is “begotten”, but the Holy Spirit “proceeds”. 🤷
Click to expand...
The Fathers couldn’t figure it out. Why stress yourself out?😃

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Peter_J said:
Well I never said that Charlemagne was a good and loyal Catholic (although now that it’s come up, I do think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, vis-à-vis conscience).

But let me ask you this: in conversations about the filioque, how often do you hear Catholics draw a distinction between, on the one hand, the Catholic position that the Pope can authorize a change in the Creed, and, on the other hand, the Protestant position that no such authorization is even necessary? Not very often, I’m guessing.
Click to expand...
In the United Church the Pope had no authorization to change the Nicene Creed with out a council approval.

By my past reading the Pope only officially changed the Nicene Creed after the Church of the East left the communion. Since he was a council of one at the time, he needed no permissions to do this. I guess the Church may change it back if the Orthodox return to the fold.

As I posted in the past the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have stated “that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.”
usccb.org/seia/filoque.shtml
 
Peter_J said:
If most Catholics were like you, then Fr. Hopko’s idea probably wouldn’t be necessary. But in fact if the Pope were to push for Catholics to say the creed without the filioque, he would (I believe) meet with a lot of resistance.
Click to expand...
Dear Peter,

At first, I was stongly agree about the Filioque, because the basis in the Gospel of John is very strong and direct (John 16:14-15, John 20:22). But, then the basis of “excluding” Filioque is also strong (John 15:26). Later, I heard news reported that Pope John Pope II agreed to remove Filioque from the Latin mass. I was shocked at first, looking for any reason, and found the idea of St. Maximus. After that, I think I can accept the apostle creed with or without the Filioque. Honestly, it sounds odd reciting the creed without Filioque.
 
mardukm said:
This seems to assume that the Procession occurred at some time in the past, and later on, the Holy Spirit assumes a role in creation.
Click to expand...
I think you’re reading unnecessary complications into that statement.

Catholics believe in an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and a temporal procession (sending) of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Orthodox believe in an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, and a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
 
adventistnomore,

I too have some issues with Fr. Hopko’s proposal. However, I don’t agree with this statment:
adventistnomore said:
A procession according to the economy of salvation, rather than in essence, is NOT the meaning of the “filioque” in the Latin creed
Click to expand...
It’s true that the Catholic Church teaches an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (as well as a temporal procession (sending) of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son); but the creedal text simply says “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” without elaboration.
 
Peter_J said:
I think you’re reading unnecessary complications into that statement.
Click to expand...
That’s possible. It just nags at me that anyone can separate the PURPOSE of the Holy Spirit as Sanctifier from His very Being. I mean, from the “FIRST INSTANCE” of His Procession from the Father, the Holy Spirit “WAS/IS” the Sanctifier, and AS SANCTIFIER, He proceeds THROUGH THE SON.
(note I put quotation marks around every term which would denote time since Eternity where the Procession occurs is outside time)

You know, when I was Coptic Orthodox not in communion with Rome, a lot of my Coptic friends and I would often criticize the Eastern Orthodox because of what we percieved as an overly strong distinction of Essence and Energy. Some of my friends even accused the EO of making the Trinity a Quadernity - God the Father, God the Son, God the Essence, and God the Energy.

I don’t hold that view now that I am a Coptic Orthodox IN communion with Rome, understanding the Eastern terminology more from contact with Eastern Catholics. However, this tendency in Eastern Orthodox theology to dichotomize the work of the Spirit from His Being vis-a-vis the Filioque controversy hearkens my mind back to those days that I mentioned above.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Peter J,

The article on the Holy Spirit was meant to assert His full divinity. I don’t see any other way to read “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” than as an implicit affirmation that He shares one essence with Father and Son, inasmuch as He essentially proceeds from both. To suddenly make that a statement on the economy of salvation would injure the intent of the creed, verbal loopholes aside.
 
adventistnomore said:
Peter J,

The article on the Holy Spirit was meant to assert His full divinity.
Click to expand...
adventistnomore,

Do you consider the original version of the creed (which says "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified … ") to “assert His full divinity”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top