Question for Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ

[dzheremi]

Like I said, I am quoting a respectable account of the events

Events that the Orthodox do not agree with or see as binding upon their churches.

Speaking about shocking things, last time I checked, the fact that someone is a sinner (ex. a bandit, mudered, etc.) has nothing to do with his faith.

And the fact that they are shows that they are people, obviously not endowed with any kind of infallibility despite our recognition of their saintliness.

If saints cannot err in faith, we will all have to strike St. Augustine from our calendars (and not just him, though he is probably the most famous given his influence on later Latin/Western theology), as he can no longer be considered a saint if that is the standard. But you have not yet demonstrated that this is so…

 

[R_C]

But you have not yet demonstrated that this is so…

Regardless, the agreement reached on the sixth session did not rely on this at all. I quoted it extensively above just to show this.

 

[Cavaradossi]

One of the Orthodox views seems to be that “Filioque was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Church of Rome in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the Great Schism”. This is, of course, incredibly inaccurate.

That is actually accurate. The first time the filioque was used in the creed at Rome was in the eleventh century. The earlier popes, while they affirmed the formula, forbade it from being added to the creed, as was the case with pope Leo III, a directive which the Franks ignored.

The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century in Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression “Filioque”.

Maximus the Confessor explains that by this phrase, the intention was not to make the Son the cause of the Spirit, in agreement with the Orthodox rejection of the filioque on the grounds that the Latin teaching now does make the Son cause of the Spirit. The words confessed may be the same, but the intention behind them seems to us not to be the same.

As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Furthermore, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

As John of Damascus teaches in his Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, but not the Spirit from the Son as origin and cause. There is a conflation here between ‘of’ which indicates belonging and ‘from’ which indicates origin. It is true that the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and that the Spirit is sent by Christ, but the Holy Scriptures contain no teaching that the Spirit has its origin and cause in the Son.

Now the “mission” or “sending” of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost.

The Greek Fathers understand the sending to be different from the eternal origin of the Spirit, which is why they do not write that the Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Son, but only that the Spirit progresses (proeisi) from the Son. The former is unacceptable while the latter is not.

Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: “What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; …he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine.” Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds.

The Son having all that the Father has is an expression of consubstantiality. It does not mean that the Son therefore participates in the hypostatic characteristics of the Father, which belong to the Father alone, nor does it mean that the Son relates to things in the same manner that the Father relates to them. To argue this would abolish the distinction between the two Hypostases.

Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive “of mine” according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

That passage details the consubstantiality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is how, for example, St. John Chrysostom interprets John 16:13-15. He understands that Christ says that the Spirit takes of what is His, in order to stress that He is not inferior to the Spirit after telling them of how the Spirit would guide them into all truth. By saying so, according to St. John Chrysostom, he expresses the unity of their action and knowledge. What that passage is not expressing, is any logical priority of the Son i.e., not that the Spirit takes from what is logically first the Son’s, and then the Spirit’s, but rather that the Spirit bestows upon us something which is shared between the Son and the Spirit and which unites them.

Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. Some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:

We recognize them in accordance with St. Maximus’ words, that the Latins of the time did not intend to teach that the Spirit had the Son as its cause, something which they had trouble expressing on account of the lack of distinct words for proceeding as there are in Greek.

 

[Cavaradossi]

First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father [St. Basil, Epistle 38; Against Eunomius I.20 and III, sub init.]

St. Basil’s Epistle 38 is not good evidence for the reason that most of it deals with epistemology and not theology. The question being answered is not what the eternal origin of the Spirit is, but how we come to know the Father through the Son and the indwelling of the Spirit, and likewise how we come to perceive their consubstantiality, by understanding that the gifts we receive from the Spirit come through the Son, having their ultimate origin in the Father. Reading the letter will reveal, for example, that St. Basil does not associate the Son as being the cause of the Spirit, but only the Father as being the cause of the Spirit. Furthermore, when he mentions procession, he uses the preposition through (διὰ), when speaking of the Son, and not the preposition from (ἐκ). The formula that the Spirit proceeds through the Son is permissible, but not from, as the latter implies causality and origin while the former does not.

At a quick glance, I’m not sure what exactly in St. Basil’s Against Eunomius 1.20 supports the filioque. Now the third book of St. Basil’s Against Eunomius is almost certainly not St. Basil’s writing. This opinion has been substantiated by many modern scholars (for example, Andrew Radde-Gallwitz in his recent translation of the work includes a footnote saying just this). It may be the case that the original work contained the passage, but the manuscripts which do also contain indications that the statement is being used as a concession for the sake of argument, along the lines of—Perhaps the Son is second in dignity, and the Spirit depends entirely upon the Son for his being (this being Eunomius’ teaching, that the Son is of less dignity than the Father, and the Spirit is third in dignity after the Son), but why should that preclude them from being consubstantial with the Father?

For instance, Cyril of Alexandria (376 – 444, Church Father, Patriarch of Alexandria, called Pillar of Faith and Seal of all the Fathers) states clearly: (Thesaur., assert. xxxiv in P.G., LXXV, 585); “When the Holy Ghost comes into our hearts, He makes us like to God, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son”; and again (Epist., xvii, Ad Nestorium, De excommunicatione in P.G., LXXVII, 117): “The Holy Ghost is not unconnected with the Son, for He is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is the Truth; so He proceeds from Him as well as from God the Father.”

In neither of these instances of St. Cyril use the the verb used in the creed. Orthodox theology allows both that the Spirit progresses (πρόεισι, the verb used in PG LXXV, 585), and that the Spirit is poured forth from (προχεῖται, the verb used in PG LXXVII, 117), but not that the Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Son, as the two formulae differ in meaning. The first two do not make the Son the cause of the Spirit, while the latter does and is therefore unacceptable.

I will hopefully address some of those other quotes later.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You don’t reject a council where a solid agreement had been reached on solid foundations (forget the saintly infallibility, which is not mentioned as far as I can tell in the official acts of the council) unless you have excellent theological reasons to do so.

Indeed, we have excellent theological reasons for doing so, namely, the teachings of Florence on the filioque. Furthermore, only about two dozen bishops from the East were present at Florence. To make it out as if we were in widespread agreement with the council when some groups of Orthodox bishops did not ever accept the council would be a stretch. The representatives of the Georgian Catholicos, for example, left Florence without ever signing, and the Georgians never approved of the council. In all reality, the union of Florence in Constantinople was propped up by the Emperor’s pro-union policy, and ended in Constantinople after there was no emperor remaining to prop it up. Like other times when the Emperors supported unsound councils, pretending that they were ecumenical (as with the iconoclasts and the monothelites), a council was later convened in order to repudiate the union of Florence.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

You have to weigh in the factor the Orthodox have a tendency to be stubborn.

 

[chimo]

Hi all, this is a question specifically for our Orthodox brethren.

Something about the filioque struck me today. I understand that the Western Church developed the Creed to include the filioque, foreign to the unchanged Creed in the East, where the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father”.

Some have argued that the filioque is not very different from what the East have because we can say that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son”. However, I think this misses the idea of what is going on here, and what is - at least I believe - the genius of the filioque.

And it’s this: the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and from the Son” because of who the Holy Spirit is, namely, the divine love en-personed. As the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, their love - like the love of a husband and wife - begets the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Spirit. If the Spirit proceeds only “from the Father”, how is He a consequence of the mutual love of Father and Son. Doesn’t this rather suggest a separation of Father/Spirit and Son?

I think we end up with a different model:

"FROM THE FATHER"

FATHER SON
I
I
I
SPIRIT

“FROM THE FATHER AND SON”

FATHER SON
I I
SPIRIT

(Okay, this editing is not working. In the first illustration, imagine a vertical line connecting Father and Spirit, but not the Son and Spirit; in the second, imagine diagonal lines from both Father and Son connecting to Spirit.)

Any ideas?

God bless.

Jonathan

I believe it is a problem in the East because it elevates the Son and further delegates the Holy Spirit if I understand how the Easterners believe it. I wouldn’t say the Holy Spirit is a by product of the love between the Father and the Son. The child incidentally is the never the Holy Spirit but rather it is the Son. How can we know this but to look at the Holy Family on earth. The Holy Family is Jesus, Mary and Joseph. This Holy Family is actually representative of the Holy Trinity in Heaven. Each person of this Holy Family imitates one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus of course represents Himself. Mary is an imitation of the Holy Spirit and Joseph then represents the Eternal Father. Every family on earth takes its own model from the highest model there is which is the Holy Trinity. That is how God designed the whole human race. He designed it after His own model. Every family becomes a little “trinity” on earth. If Orthodox and Catholics want to further the discussion of the creed of the Church all they have to do is to go back to the table to finalise these definitions to agreement for both sides. It is more easier today then it was 1000 years ago.

We can use as a model in discussing this the Holy Family itself. I personally do not have any argument about the additional clause which the Catholic Church established. In my opinion this did not alter anything within the Catholic world by which the Orthodox Church sometimes claim to happen. In my observations words regarding the definition of the Trinity really do not alter our love for Him. Since the additional clause has been used for over 1200 years by the Catholic Church it seems God was not disturbed by it as well. The fact of the matter is the countless number of saints who were raised Catholic and raised by this clause testifies to its use as not problematic to God. Since God has not been bothered by this I decided that our Catholic brothers and sisters must be doing something right.

It is my personal observations (I learn best from observing and not technically reading) that our two Churches operate under two forms of missionary work. One of these is evangelical where the Church’s missionary work is more outward and is considered exterior. This is Rome’s greatest ability. Orthodox operate under a different principal as their missionary work is more inward and involves the person interiorly. Orthodox greatest strength is her mystical and contemplative approach. It seems that both of our Creeds reflect what type of missionary work we are mostly involve with. The Catholic Church decided to give the Creed an expression of her own missionary involvement by giving the Creed the necessary mission of the Holy Spirit. This explains her own outward activity. The Orthodox have always maintained her inward activity thus it reflects in her own understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit that is within the Trinity. So the Orthodox Church’s understanding in the Creed defines her own abilities.Thus both Churches are correct depending on what roles the Holy Spirit gives to them in their lives.

Basically what I am saying is they are both right because they both define their own gifts and roles within their own missionary apostolic work accordingly to which the Holy Spirit has given to them. In fact you can say truthfully it is complimentary.

 

[jonathan_hili]

How can anyone hundreds of years later begin to believe & teach that the Holy Spirit who Personally inspired the Bishops of those Ecumenical Councils get it wrong - wrong about Himself, no less - which would then require a later correction by persons who presumably claimed to know more about the Holy Spirit than the Holy Spirit knows & revealed about Himself?

Notice, though, that the filioque does not deny the Creed of those Ecumenical Councils - it doesn’t contradict what was said but expands on it. The Creeds state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. After more reflection, it can be understood that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son and this is a development of doctrine, not a contradiction.

It would be a contradiction, if the Creed stated: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not the Son.”

 

[jonathan_hili]

None of that answered my question which was about the statement I quoted from your post.

Where does this concept of infallibility of saints come from?

I think he might be alluding to something like the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church. Otherwise, I’m not sure what he’s saying is correct, unless he wants to suggest that, being saints, they cannot have believed serious doctrinal errors or else they wouldn’t have been canonised?

 

[jonathan_hili]

I believe it is a problem in the East because it elevates the Son and further delegates the Holy Spirit if I understand how the Easterners believe it. I wouldn’t say the Holy Spirit is a by product of the love between the Father and the Son. The child incidentally is the never the Holy Spirit but rather it is the Son. How can we know this but to look at the Holy Family on earth. The Holy Family is Jesus, Mary and Joseph. This Holy Family is actually representative of the Holy Trinity in Heaven. Each person of this Holy Family imitates one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus of course represents Himself. Mary is an imitation of the Holy Spirit and Joseph then represents the Eternal Father. Every family on earth takes its own model from the highest model there is which is the Holy Trinity. That is how God designed the whole human race. He designed it after His own model. Every family becomes a little “trinity” on earth. If Orthodox and Catholics want to further the discussion of the creed of the Church all they have to do is to go back to the table to finalise these definitions to agreement for both sides. It is more easier today then it was 1000 years ago.

We can use as a model in discussing this the Holy Family itself. I personally do not have any argument about the additional clause which the Catholic Church established. In my opinion this did not alter anything within the Catholic world by which the Orthodox Church sometimes claim to happen. In my observations words regarding the definition of the Trinity really do not alter our love for Him. Since the additional clause has been used for over 1200 years by the Catholic Church it seems God was not disturbed by it as well. The fact of the matter is the countless number of saints who were raised Catholic and raised by this clause testifies to its use as not problematic to God. Since God has not been bothered by this I decided that our Catholic brothers and sisters must be doing something right.

It is my personal observations (I learn best from observing and not technically reading) that our two Churches operate under two forms of missionary work. One of these is evangelical where the Church’s missionary work is more outward and is considered exterior. This is Rome’s greatest ability. Orthodox operate under a different principal as their missionary work is more inward and involves the person interiorly. Orthodox greatest strength is her mystical and contemplative approach. It seems that both of our Creeds reflect what type of missionary work we are mostly involve with. The Catholic Church decided to give the Creed an expression of her own missionary involvement by giving the Creed the necessary mission of the Holy Spirit. This explains her own outward activity. The Orthodox have always maintained her inward activity thus it reflects in her own understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit that is within the Trinity. So the Orthodox Church’s understanding in the Creed defines her own abilities.Thus both Churches are correct depending on what roles the Holy Spirit gives to them in their lives.

Basically what I am saying is they are both right because they both define their own gifts and roles within their own missionary apostolic work accordingly to which the Holy Spirit has given to them. In fact you can say truthfully it is complimentary.

I completely agree with what you’ve said. My talk about the “marriage” of the Trinity was supposed to be analogical, as you’ve surmised.

And I agree that adding the filioque actually changes little in the theology between East and West.

Hmmm interesting suggestion there about the two roles played by the Churches. Certainly, the East has a rich mystical and meditative tradition that we in the West would do well to understand and be involved in. My girlfriend is Greek Orthodox and I find a great richness of spirit and wisdom in their liturgy, prayers and approach to the holy life.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hmmm the discussion seems to have been derailed. Everyone is arguing about when the filioque was added but, to me, that’s besides the point since, from a Catholic perspective, the Magisterium has the authority to do that, just as they have the authority to pronounce on the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Since the filioque doesn’t contradict what was said in the Creeds (it was never stated that the Holy Spirit does not and cannot proceed from the Son), I take it as a development of doctrine.

My question is: doesn’t the filioque make more sense of the eternal mutual relationship between the Three Persons of the Divine Trinity?

 

[Cider]

Hmmm the discussion seems to have been derailed. Everyone is arguing about when the filioque was added but, to me, that’s besides the point since, from a Catholic perspective, the Magisterium has the authority to do that, just as they have the authority to pronounce on the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Since the filioque doesn’t contradict what was said in the Creeds (it was never stated that the Holy Spirit does not and cannot proceed from the Son), I take it as a development of doctrine.

My question is: doesn’t the filioque make more sense of the eternal mutual relationship between the Three Persons of the Divine Trinity?

Yes, but you asked for the Orthodox perspective in the OP so it does matter as the Orthodox only accept the first 7 ecumenical councils and don’t believe in the Catholic understanding of development of doctrine.

If you want the Orthodox perspective you can’t limit them by only allowing answers that are consistent with Catholic Church teaching.

My personal opinion is that no the filioque doesn’t make “more” sense of the eternal relationship between the three persons. If anything this thread shows that it can lead to some real rabbit holes.

 

[chimo]

Hmmm the discussion seems to have been derailed. Everyone is arguing about when the filioque was added but, to me, that’s besides the point since, from a Catholic perspective, the Magisterium has the authority to do that, just as they have the authority to pronounce on the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Since the filioque doesn’t contradict what was said in the Creeds (it was never stated that the Holy Spirit does not and cannot proceed from the Son), I take it as a development of doctrine.

My question is: doesn’t the filioque make more sense of the eternal mutual relationship between the Three Persons of the Divine Trinity?

I believe you are right about it been a development of doctrine. Perhaps it is not over until the two sides formally meet. Since Catholic doctrine fall mostly on the Magisterium of the Pope and his bishops it will be to the advantage of the Catholic Church to respect the government of the Orthodox Church and go along with her to engage into a real dialogue of recognition. It will mean another Ecumenical Council. I am sure it will come since the Popes of recent memory are very opened to regain dialogue with the Orthodox Church. Since the Orthodox Church operates under a different pattern of government Rome must show this respect for her and offer to her this olive branch. We both must acknowledge our deepest need for each other and be more sensitive to each others teachings and doctrines.

It is to my understanding of the filioque that by its wording it doesn’t make sense. This is my own thoughts. When I say it does not make sense I am referring to the eternal relationship the Holy Spirit has within the Trinity. There is something missing in those words that points to something lacking. My understanding as an Orthodox came much later as I was raised in a Catholic Western setting in the first half on my life. I was baptised in an Orthodox Church but raised Western first. When I learned of this additional part of the creed it was not until my father told me in my late 20’s that I was Orthodox. This led me into a different new world. I have been taught by this new world and incorporated it with the teaching I inherited while living in the Catholic world. Since I learn best from observations, these skills God had given to me were put into good use to help me understand why He developed two Churches but with different characteristics and personalities. It was if God deliberately made us different so that each Church may help the other Church once maturity has set in. I believe this maturity has reached now in the present day. We are now at the stage where our two Churches can engage in dialogue in a way that it has never been done before. This means we are at the threshold of a newer alignment of our Churches that God has been preparing us for.

If you checked out the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity the words put forth in the Western addition to the creed can actually disarm the Eastern view. There has to be some compromise from the West and yes from the East for both sides to reach agreement on. On its own the Western additional wording can never be accepted in the East. Since in my own personal observations that the western addition was something that only reflects the temporary mission of the Holy Spirit into the world then this additional part of the Creed makes sense. I believe the Catholic world was only making an interesting comment on its own missionary activity and that is why she had chosen these words.

In the eternal relationship within the Trinity I don’t believe we could ever get it perfectly right. I mean the only person who really knows God is God. I don’t think we can ever get close in understanding those relationships within each Person of the Trinity. You have to be God to do that and thank God we are not Him.

I believe all of this to be shortly resolve when the Holy Father, your Pope and a great shepherd for the Church will contact the Orthodox to meet in a great council. I believe this is the only way to iron all of this out.

We don’t really know the relationships that exists between the Persons of the Trinity for in my opinion that would be guess work on our part. For instance we have the Scriptures and we have the Holy Spirit in us and yet with what little there is in scripture we still are bogged down on words. I don’t think you need to be precisely accurate in defining God. I believe what is more important is to love Him and to be in a relationship with Him. That needs to be our top priority.

I am also Greek Orthodox and I wish you and your girlfriend a very holy and blessed Pascha (Easter) which incidentally falls on March 31 for the Catholic and May 4 for the Orthodox.

 

[jonathan_hili]

p.s. I’m not a fellow, I’m a gal

Whoops! Sorry!

 

[R_C]

@ Cavaradossi: thank you very much for taking the time and giving such detailed reply. I have learned a lot.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Notice, though, that the filioque does not deny the Creed of those Ecumenical Councils - it doesn’t contradict what was said but expands on it. The Creeds state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. After more reflection, it can be understood that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son and this is a development of doctrine, not a contradiction.

It would be a contradiction, if the Creed stated: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not the Son.”

Jonathan, the “filioque” is an Addition to the Creed. And the Holy Spirit inspired the infallible Holy Ecumenical Councils to place an Anathema on anyone who would dare to Add to that Creed. No exception for those in Toledo, no exception for the Franks & no exception for the Bishop of Rome, no exception to the multiple Anathemas.

An Amathema by an Ecumenical Council can’t be lifted. God doesn’t change His mind.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Whoops! Sorry!

no worried

 

[Reuben_J]

Jonathan, the “filioque” is an Addition to the Creed. And the Holy Spirit inspired the infallible Holy Ecumenical Councils to place an Anathema on anyone who would dare to Add to that Creed. No exception for those in Toledo, no exception for the Franks & no exception for the Bishop of Rome, no exception to the multiple Anathemas.

An Amathema by an Ecumenical Council can’t be lifted. God doesn’t change His mind.

I think it is more of a development, not addition. The Holy Spirit can reveal to us more as time goes on.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Whoops! Sorry!

no worries

 

[John2007]

I’m an Orthodox convert and not much of a theologian, but one of the Eastern positions on the filoque is that the First Council of Ephesus condemned any changes to the Creed. The filoque developed hundreds of years later and was infamously (in the Orthodox view) adopted by The Western Church. The usual Catholic position seems to be that the filoque is right because it’s in the Western Creed, holding The Council of Ephesus as null and void on the matter of it he immutability of the Creed.

The specific theology is confusing to me because it deals with the nature of the trinity, a mystery that cannot be completely understood by me and perhaps not by others.

Orthodox strive to maintain the Church beliefs as outlined in the accepted ecumenical councils-three or seven-and to avoid the gradual evolution of doctrine which has occurred under successive Popes without church wide councils since the schism.

John