Orthodox & Catholics: What Still Divides Us?

[RyanBlack]

Another thing. For the sake of argument, if the language of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is primarily about consubstantiality, why is it not sufficient in the original language. In other words, if saying “the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father” is not sufficient to convince heretics that the Holy Spirit is fully divine, what difference will be made by the assertion of the filioque? I can’t see that the filioque accomplishes anything in terms of establishing the divinity of the Holy Spirit that is not already accomplished by the Creed as articulated in 381. So, again, I come back to the widely-held view that the filioque was added to help defend the divinity of Christ against the heresy of the Arian Goths in Spain. Of course, that assertion says nothing whatsoever about whether the filioque is ultimately true. As I’ve said in my previous post, I’m agnostic on that question. I think that there should be room for differences of opinion on this question and that each side should be charitable toward the other. While I am sympathetic to those who oppose the filioque, I’m terribly uncomfortable with declaring it to be heretical, since I believe that there are Eastern as well as Western Fathers whose teachings uphold the filioque. On the other hand, I’m also opposed to any attempts to impose acceptance of the filioque on the Orthodox as a precondition to coming into communion with Rome.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ryan,

Another thing. For the sake of argument, if the language of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is primarily about consubstantiality, why is it not sufficient in the original language. In other words, if saying “the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father” is not sufficient to convince heretics that the Holy Spirit is fully divine, what difference will be made by the assertion of the filioque?

I thought I addressed this in my previous post. Perhaps I was being unclear.

The concept of divinity is different from the concept of consubstantiality. You and I as orthodox Christians today can take it for granted that divinity is perfectly equivalent to consubstantiality and vice-versa. But this perfect equivalence was not immediately evident to many in the early Church. As already stated, Arians and certain Pneumatomachi had no problem assigning divinity to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The problem was that they thought of the Son and the Holy Spirit as LESSER divine beings than the Father.

To combat this peculiar facet of their respective heresies, a statement on CONSUBSTANTIALITY (i.e., EQUALITY IN DIVINE ESSENCE), aside from a statement on divinity, was needed. For the Son (against the Arians), it was the addition of the term homoousion; for the Holy Spirit (against the Pneumatomachi) it was the addition of the phrase “ekporeusai from the Father.”

I can’t see that the filioque accomplishes anything in terms of establishing the divinity of the Holy Spirit that is not already accomplished by the Creed as articulated in 381.

The filioque was not meant to establish the divinity of Christ or the Holy Spirit. The filioque was added by the Westerns to establish the EQUALITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE of all three Persons of the Trinity. The filioque refuted that peculiar facet of the Arian heresy which, while admitting that Christ was divine, nevertheless assumed that Christ was a LESSER divine being than the Father.

Arians thought to themselves, “See - they use different terms to describe the relationship between Father and Son, on the one hand, and Father and Holy Spirit, on the other. Therefore, the Son, though divine, is not equal in His divinity to the Father.” So the Catholic Church in Spain added “and the Son” to the phrase which proclaimed the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father - namely, “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” So the Latins now had in one concise statement, a dogmatic affirmation of the CONSUBSTANTIALITY (i.e., the EQUAL DIVINITY) of ALL THREE Persons of the Godhead.

To repeat, we very easily take for granted TODAY that consubstantiality is perfectly equivalent to divinity, but that was not the case in the early Church, and the Fathers of the first Ecumenical Councils had their hands full with heretics who made that false dichotomy.

I hope that helps.

I will respond to your other posts later in the week.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

St. Maximos the Confessor clearly saw no problem with the theology behind Filioque. At the height of the Monothelite controversy, when the Roman curia issued its profession of faith to the imperial court of Constantinople, employing the Greek term “ekporeusis,” but then including “and the Son,” the Byzantines were understandably scandalized, since the expression in Greek obviously (though unintentionally) implied two Causes for the Spirit. However, St. Maximos came to Rome’s defense, writing …

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says ‘the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.’ The other deals with the Divine incarnation.

With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria …On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the Cause of the Spirit --they know in fact that the Father is the only Cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession --but that they have manifested the procession through Him [the Son] and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (i.e., Monothelitism).

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the ‘also from the Son’) in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do." (Epistle to Marinus, PG 91, 136.)

So by the 6th century this issue is already understood and defined. And no problems exist in the churchs now till the 8th century. So another two-hundred years elapse in the understanding this isn’t a dividing issue but a defining issue.

Had the issue of heresy not already been presented in Arianism and the problems in the East which St. Maximos defines as “the Monothelite controversy.” Then there would have never been a need to further define. Nonethless it still doesn’t get away from the fact that we are dealing with semantics.

Which is also what Ryan is correctly pointing out here; “So, again, I come back to the widely-held view that the filioque was added to help defend the divinity of Christ against the heresy of the Arian Goths in Spain.”

One cannot avoid this truth, the fact that a clearer definition hasn’t arrived has little to do with truth as to why the filioque did arrive or its intended purpose which was obviously to address a existing issue in Christology.

The fact that its not perfect only indictates the human side of the flesh as opposed to the supernatural.

God Bless, Gary

 

[RyanBlack]

Dear brother Ryan,

I thought I addressed this in my previous post. Perhaps I was being unclear.

The concept of divinity is different from the concept of consubstantiality. You and I as orthodox Christians today can take it for granted that divinity is perfectly equivalent to consubstantiality and vice-versa. But this perfect equivalence was not immediately evident to many in the early Church. As already stated, Arians and certain Pneumatomachi had no problem assigning divinity to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The problem was that they thought of the Son and the Holy Spirit as LESSER divine beings than the Father.

To combat this peculiar facet of their respective heresies, a statement on CONSUBSTANTIALITY (i.e., EQUALITY IN DIVINE ESSENCE), aside from a statement on divinity, was needed. For the Son (against the Arians), it was the addition of the term homoousion; for the Holy Spirit (against the Pneumatomachi) it was the addition of the phrase “ekporeusai from the Father.”

The filioque was not meant to establish the divinity of Christ or the Holy Spirit. The filioque was added by the Westerns to establish the EQUALITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE of all three Persons of the Trinity. The filioque refuted that peculiar facet of the Arian heresy which, while admitting that Christ was divine, nevertheless assumed that Christ was a LESSER divine being than the Father.

Arians thought to themselves, “See - they use different terms to describe the relationship between Father and Son, on the one hand, and Father and Holy Spirit, on the other. Therefore, the Son, though divine, is not equal in His divinity to the Father.” So the Catholic Church in Spain added “and the Son” to the phrase which proclaimed the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father - namely, “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” So the Latins now had in one concise statement, a dogmatic affirmation of the CONSUBSTANTIALITY (i.e., the EQUAL DIVINITY) of ALL THREE Persons of the Godhead.

To repeat, we very easily take for granted TODAY that consubstantiality is perfectly equivalent to divinity, but that was not the case in the early Church, and the Fathers of the first Ecumenical Councils had their hands full with heretics who made that false dichotomy.

I hope that helps.

I will respond to your other posts later in the week.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Arians saw both the Word as a creature, the greatest of all creatures for sure, but a creature nonetheless. The Pneumatomachoi saw the Holy Spirit as a creature. Creatures are not divine. We know that now, and that was known by Christians of the 4th century.

On the question of the statement of the procession of the Holy Spirit as being a statement of consubstantiality as opposed to a statement on the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father, who is the origin of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, you are simply wrong on the facts about what the emphasis was. Every source I’ve read, and I’ve read several, both primary and secondary, states that the teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father refers to the Holy Spirit’s origin from the Father. Nowhere have I ever read, except in this thread, that it is primarily a statement of consubstantiality. Consubstantiality can be argued from it, but it is not primarly a statement of consubstantiality. The whole of the article on the Holy Spirit from the Council in 381, statements of local synods the following year that clarified consubstantiality, and the writings of St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians all clearly point to the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father. However, procession is indeed primarily about the origin of the Holy Spirit, but don’t take my word for it–read some reputable scholars, and go to the writings of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who, after all, was present in 381 at the Council of Constantinople.

 

[RyanBlack]

The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople were influenced greatly by the teachings of St. Basil the Great, which he had articulated in On the Holy Spirit. In this work, he points out that the language we use in referring to the Holy Spirit and very fact that we worship the Holy Spirit shows that he is God—not a creature, not a “lesser divinity” (not that any of the Fathers would have even acknowledged such a thing )—but fully God. St. Basil died prior to the Council, but the other Cappadocian Fathers, St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Gregory of Nyssa, promoted his teachings concerning the Holy Spirit, and their own as well. Both of them understood procession as referring to the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father (St. Gregory of Nazianzus) of from the Father through the Son (St. Gregory of Nyssa). Furthermore, it is highly likely that the Fathers of the Council had been influenced by the teachings of St. Athanasius, who had taught that the Holy Spirit must be truly God, because otherwise, we would be in a state of idolatry for worshipping him (much like his argument against the Arians concerning our worship of the Son); he had also taught that the Holy Spirit must be truly God, otherwise he could not divinize us (much like his argument that the Son must be God, otherwise he could not save us). All of this—the titles we ascribe to the Holy Spirit, the fact that he gives life and sanctifies, the fact that he is worshipped together with the Father and the Son, and the fact that Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father demonstrates his divine origin within the Godhead are sufficient to demonstrate consubstantiality. However, the language of procession is indeed primarily about the Holy Spirit’s divine origin from the Father, who is the ultimate source of the divine life. The statement on procession is analogous to the statement concerning the begetting of the Son by the Father; it is not analogous to the statement on the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.

 

[RyanBlack]

Marduk,

Can you provide me with sources that counter all that I’ve have learned from my professors, from the primary sources, and from secondary scholarship that all say nothing about the procession of the Holy Spirit as an explicit statement of consubstantiality, but instead, point out that it refers to the Holy Spirit’s origin from the Father? To the list of sources I gave in a previous thread, I will add the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Holy Ghost, which states, “We need not dwell at length on the precise meaning of the Procession in God. (See TRINITY.) It will suffice here to remark that by this word we mean the relation of origin that exists between one Divine Person and another, or between one and the two others as its principle of origin.”

 

[RyanBlack]

Marduk,

Can you provide me with sources that counter all that I’ve have learned from my professors, from the primary sources, and from secondary scholarship that all say nothing about the procession of the Holy Spirit as an explicit statement of consubstantiality, but instead, point out that it refers to the Holy Spirit’s origin from the Father? To the list of sources I gave in a previous thread, I will add the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Holy Ghost, which states, “We need not dwell at length on the precise meaning of the Procession in God. (See TRINITY.) It will suffice here to remark that by this word we mean the relation of origin that exists between one Divine Person and another, or between one and the two others as its principle of origin.”

That same Catholic Encyclopedia Article on the Holy Spirit denies the equating of consubstantiality with the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father (and the Son), stating, “The Father and the Son love one another from all eternity, with a perfect ineffable love; the term of this infinite fruitful mutual love is Their Spirit Who is co-eternal and con-substantial with Them. Only, the Holy Ghost is not indebted to the manner of His Procession precisely for this perfect resemblance to His principle, in other words for His consubstantiality; for to will or love an object does not formally imply the production of its immanent image in the soul that loves, but rather a tendency, a movement of the will towards the thing loved, to be united to it and enjoy it.”

What the portion I have bolded is saying, as I read it, is that the Holy Spirit does not “owe” His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son (or his perfect resemblance to them) to the manner of His procession from the Father and the Son.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ryan,

The Arians saw both the Word as a creature, the greatest of all creatures for sure, but a creature nonetheless. The Pneumatomachoi saw the Holy Spirit as a creature. Creatures are not divine. We know that now, and that was known by Christians of the 4th century.

I’m rather surprised that with all your degrees, you are not aware that

1. the specific heresy of the Arians was that they believed the divinity of the Son was ACQUIRED. They indeed believed he was a creature, and he ACQUIRED his divinity as a gift from the Father.
2. Arianism was derived from the henotheism which pervaded all of paganism during that time. Arianism became so widespread for the very fact that it was so similar to the henotheistic ideologies of the converts to Arian “Christianity” - to be more specific, the idea of “degrees of divinity.”
3. the Pneumatomachi were simply an offshoot of Arianism. Their beliefs were based on the same henotheistic “degrees of divinity” principle that pervaded strict Arianism - except that Pneumatomachi applied the henotheistic principle to the Holy Spirit, instead of the Son. The Pneumatomachi admitted that the Spirit had divine attributes - it’s just that they did not believe that these attributes were inherent in the Spirit, but that the Spirit was a mere instrumentality of the Supreme Cause (in the words of St. Basil).

On the question of the statement of the procession of the Holy Spirit as being a statement of consubstantiality as opposed to a statement on the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father, who is the origin of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, you are simply wrong on the facts about what the emphasis was. Every source I’ve read, and I’ve read several, both primary and secondary, states that the teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father refers to the Holy Spirit’s origin from the Father. Nowhere have I ever read, except in this thread, that it is primarily a statement of consubstantiality. Consubstantiality can be argued from it, but it is not primarly a statement of consubstantiality. The whole of the article on the Holy Spirit from the Council in 381, statements of local synods the following year that clarified consubstantiality, and the writings of St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians all clearly point to the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father. However, procession is indeed primarily about the origin of the Holy Spirit, but don’t take my word for it–read some reputable scholars, and go to the writings of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who, after all, was present in 381 at the Council of Constantinople.

I would humbly suggest reading your primary sources more deeply and contextually. Then, you might discover that even those very Fathers who admitted the origination of the Spirit from the Father did so to stress His consubstantiality with the Father, not to stress that the Father was the principle of origination (and that includes St. Gregory Nazianzen). I’ll provide the quotes from him and others, as well as the Ecumenical Councils, on the matter later in the week. I gave you some of the quotes already, but you have not responded to them. That’s OK, I’d prefer a response after I provide the greater number of quotes later in the week.

For now, I must ask you – what heresy was supposed to be addressed by adding the clause “ekporeusai from the Father?” What I mean is, if you are claiming that the phrase was meant by the Fathers to stress the origin of the Spirit from the Father, can you please indicate for us exactly what heresy denied that the Spirit had His origin from the Father? I seriously don’t know, so I hope you can back up your claim by revealing for us the name of this heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

“For now, I must ask you – what heresy was supposed to be addressed by adding the clause “ekporeusai from the Father?” What I mean is, if you are claiming that the phrase was meant by the Fathers to stress the origin of the Spirit from the Father, can you please indicate for us exactly what heresy denied that the Spirit had His origin from the Father? I seriously don’t know, so I hope you can back up your claim by revealing for us the name of this heresy.”

The heresy here is in the definition of the Greek terminology.

The Catholic Church does not deny the Constantinopolitan Creed as originally written. This is why our Byzantine Catholic Churches recite the Creed without the Filioque, and why even we “Roman” [which i hate the word] Catholic’s are able to recite the Creed without the Filioque when participating in Byzantine Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Liturgies. This is also why we reject the clause “…kai tou Uiou …” ("…and the Son") being added to the Creedal expression “ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon” in Greek, even when used by Latin Rite Catholics in Greek-speaking communities. If the Greek word “ekporeusis” is to be used or intended, then it is incorrect and heretical to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son.” Neither East nor West believes that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son” as a common source or principal (aitia). Rather, that one Source and Principal (Aition) is the Father, and the Father alone.

God Bless, Gary

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ryan,

That same Catholic Encyclopedia Article on the Holy Spirit denies the equating of consubstantiality with the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father (and the Son), stating, “The Father and the Son love one another from all eternity, with a perfect ineffable love; the term of this infinite fruitful mutual love is Their Spirit Who is co-eternal and con-substantial with Them. Only, the Holy Ghost is not indebted to the manner of His Procession precisely for this perfect resemblance to His principle, in other words for His consubstantiality; for to will or love an object does not formally imply the production of its immanent image in the soul that loves, but rather a tendency, a movement of the will towards the thing loved, to be united to it and enjoy it.”

What the portion I have bolded is saying, as I read it, is that the Holy Spirit does not “owe” His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son (or his perfect resemblance to them) to the manner of His procession from the Father and the Son.

I can see where you are coming from. The thing that causes me to disagree is the word “precisely.” The use of that word indicates that the author is using the term “for” in the sense of “because of.”

The way I read it is:
We do not need to try to guess the manner of His Procession precisely because of His consubstantiality. In other words, His Procession and consubstantiality amount to the same thing.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Like in my post 121, which no one replied to , does anyone ever use Scripture to try to sort this filioque fiasco out? What do people think of the references from Scripture I felt pointed to it?

 

[RyanBlack]

Dear brother Ryan,

I can see where you are coming from. The thing that causes me to disagree is the word “precisely.” The use of that word indicates that the author is using the term “for” in the sense of “because of.”

The way I read it is:
We do not need to try to guess the manner of His Procession precisely because of His consubstantiality. In other words, His Procession and consubstantiality amount to the same thing.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t disagree with you that the language of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, that is to say, that the Father, who alone in unoriginate, originates the Holy Spirit by way of procession ultimately means that they are consubstantial. What I disagree with is the assertion that the primary purpose of the statement of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is not that He originates from the Father by way of procession, as opposed to by way of generation, which is the way in which the Son receives His life from the Father), but that the primary purpose is to say that He is consubstantial with the Father. The consubstantiality is obviously (at least from my perspective) implied by the totality of the statements made in the article on the Holy Spirit. I’m beginning to think that we’re talking past each other. However, based on all the sources I’ve read (and please don’t take offense, because I mean none, but I’ll continue to accept them as being more authoritative then you, since I don’t even have a real name to attach to who you are), the primary meaning of the language of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is to explain the manner or the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father, both in the sense of affirming that the Holy Spirit does indeed originate from the Father (which I agree does show consubstantiality) and in the sense of showing that the manner in which the Holy Spirit takes his life from the Father is distinct from the manner in which the Son takes his life from the Father.

 

[RyanBlack]

Like in my post 121, which no one replied to , does anyone ever use Scripture to try to sort this filioque fiasco out? What do people think of the references from Scripture I felt pointed to it?

The standard Orthodox answer is that they refer to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, sent into the world by the Son, as opposed to the eternal relations among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In other words, the Orthodox would reject these verses as supporting the filioque.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That would seem a pretty thin argument but thanks for paraphrasing their approach, Ryan…

The standard Orthodox answer is that they refer to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, sent into the world by the Son, as opposed to the eternal relations among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In other words, the Orthodox would reject these verses as supporting the filioque.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

Sorry for being unclear. I’m not referring to the relatively late debate between East and West which only started with St. Photius. What I was asking for was the identity of the heretics in the fourth century that caused the addition of the phrase “ekporeusai from the Father” as meaning “originates from the Father.” What I mean is, someone must have been denying that the Spirit originated from the Father, if that was the intention of the Constantinopolitan Fathers for adding that phrase. AFAIK, not even the Pneumatomachi/Macedonians denied that the Spirit originated from the Father. So – to repeat – who were these heretics that denied that the Spirit originated from the Father, if, as you claim, that was the original intention of adding the phrase “ekporeusai from the Father” to the Creed?

Can you quote ANY orthodox Catholic Father from the Fourth century who were combatting any heretics who denied that the Spirit originated from the Father?

Blessings,
Marduk

“For now, I must ask you – what heresy was supposed to be addressed by adding the clause “ekporeusai from the Father?” What I mean is, if you are claiming that the phrase was meant by the Fathers to stress the origin of the Spirit from the Father, can you please indicate for us exactly what heresy denied that the Spirit had His origin from the Father? I seriously don’t know, so I hope you can back up your claim by revealing for us the name of this heresy.”

The heresy here is in the definition of the Greek terminology.

The Catholic Church does not deny the Constantinopolitan Creed as originally written. This is why our Byzantine Catholic Churches recite the Creed without the Filioque, and why even we “Roman” [which i hate the word] Catholic’s are able to recite the Creed without the Filioque when participating in Byzantine Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Liturgies. This is also why we reject the clause “…kai tou Uiou …” ("…and the Son") being added to the Creedal expression “ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon” in Greek, even when used by Latin Rite Catholics in Greek-speaking communities. If the Greek word “ekporeusis” is to be used or intended, then it is incorrect and heretical to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son.” Neither East nor West believes that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son” as a common source or principal (aitia). Rather, that one Source and Principal (Aition) is the Father, and the Father alone.

 

[RyanBlack]

That would seem a pretty thin argument but thanks for paraphrasing their approach, Ryan…

Well, to the Orthodox, it’s not a thin argument at all, and it’s one with which I agree, to the extent that they argue that these verses address the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit into the world by Christ beginning with Pentecost and to the extent that I don’t believe that these verses provide particularly strong support for the filioque. On the other hand, making the argument-even if one does so convincingly-that they do not support the filioque, by no mean disproves the filioque.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Filioque,” a Latin expression meaning “and the Son,” is of course a clause that was added by the Latin West to the Constantinopolitan Creed, originally formulated in Greek by the First Council of Constantinople in the year A.D. 381. This Creed of 381, in regard to the Holy Spirit, originally read:

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified.”

The Western Church, first in A.D. 589 at the regional council of Toledo, amended this statement to include:

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son (i.e., Filioque). With the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified.”

Now, while it took quite some time for the Eastern Church to become aware of, and offended by, this Western amendment, it eventually became a serious bone of contention between Eastern and Westerner churchmen. And for good reason. For, in the original Greek text of the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, the term “proceeds” (ekporeusis) had a specific and all-important meaning. It meant to originate from a single Source, Principal, or Cause (Aitia). And the single Source, Principal, or Cause of the Holy Spirit is of course the Father, and the Father alone. As St. Gregory of Nazianzus says …

“The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for It is not by generation, but by ekporeusis” (Discourse 39. 12).

Indeed, it was this very theology of the Cappadocian fathers (i.e., Sts. Gregory Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa) that the bishops at Constantinople I (381) intended to promote when they authored the Creed to say “The Holy Spirit …Who proceeds from the Father.” –a reference to the Father’s Monarchy as the sole Source, Principal, or Cause of the Spirit. And the bishops at Constantinople I did this to counter the heresy of the Macedonian Arians, who, at the time, were claiming that the Spirit is merely a “creation” of the Son.

‘No,’ said the Council fathers, ‘the Spirit is Divine and has His Source, like the Son, with the Father. It is from the Father that the Spirit proceeds.’

First of all, one needs to appreciate the authentic history of the A.D. 381 Council of Constantinople, which was not recognized in the West (or in the East) as ecumenical until about the time of the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. In the wake of the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), Arianism experienced a dramatic resurgence in the East, with very limited impact on the West. By the 360’s, and especially with the election of Pope St. Damasus I in A.D. 367, the West was free from any native Arian influences. Not so in the East, however, where a large number of bishops were still Arians. Constantinople itself was a formally Arian see, with Arianism officially promoted by the Eastern Emperor Valens. But anyway On August 9, A.D. 378, Valens was killed and his army lost to an army of Goths led by Fritigern, whom Valens had given permission only two years earlier to settle in Roman territory.

So yes the heresy existed in the east and its historically documented.

God Bless, Gary

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hear the argument more “it wasn’t put there at Nicaea, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!” argument than theological ones it seems…I still don’t think this should’ve been “schism worthy” stuff…

Well, to the Orthodox, it’s not a thin argument at all, and it’s one with which I agree, to the extent that they argue that these verses address the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit into the world by Christ beginning with Pentecost and to the extent that I don’t believe that these verses provide particularly strong support for the filioque. On the other hand, making the argument-even if one does so convincingly-that they do not support the filioque, by no mean disproves the filioque.

 

[RyanBlack]

I hear the argument more “it wasn’t put there at Nicaea, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!” argument than theological ones it seems…I still don’t think this should’ve been “schism worthy” stuff…

Well, I agree that this shouldn’t have been “schism worthy stuff.” I would only qualify that by stating that both sides bear responsibility for the schism. In other words, the schism wasn’t brought about only by the East’s refusal to accept the filioque.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No, I never thought that either…But the fact that we’re all hashing this out over 1,000 years later is just mind-boggling sometimes, isn’t it?

I don’t think it was so much the fact “of” the filioque as much as the West’s forcing some Orthodox to embrace it in some regions…

Well, I agree that this shouldn’t have been “schism worthy stuff.” I would only qualify that by stating that both sides bear responsibility for the schism. In other words, the schism wasn’t brought about only by the East’s refusal to accept the filioque.