St. Symeon the New Theologian on the Filioque?

[Cecilianus]

I am wondering if anyone knows if St. Symeon the New Theologian said anything explicitly regarding the Filioque. I am curious because of the following passage - in the Catechetical Discourses (p. 344 in the Paulist Press edition) where he seems to hint at an acceptance of the Catholic doctrine on the issue:

“If a name is attributed to One, it is by nature applied to the others, with the exception of the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or the terms beget, begotten, and proceeding, for these alone indisputably apply to the Holy Trinity by nature and in distinctive fashion. As for an interchange of names, or their reversal, or their change, that we are forbidden to speak about. These terms characterize the three Persons, so that in this way we cannot place the Son before the Father nor the Holy Ghost before the Son. We must speak of them together as “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” without the slightest difference of duration or time between them. The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds simultaneousy with the Father’s existence.”

This is the first passage of Symeon’s I’ve seen this summer - when I read the Catechetical Discourses, the Ethical Discourses, and the Hymns of Divine Love - which I remember even coming close to talking about the Filioque (and here the allusion is, in fact, quite indirect), so I thought I’d take the risk and post this before reading the last thirty pages of the Catechetical Discourse.

Anybody here know more about Symeon’s explanation of the doctrine, or anything else that he contributed to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Formosus]

By Catholic I assume you mean the Roman view of the Filioque. This passage, if anything, indicates he does not agree with the Roman view. He is discussing the traditional Byzantine way of looking at the Three Hypostases. Each one has an attribute that the other does not and it ties it all in with the Father as the unity of it because only He is unbegotten and unspirited. This is in contrast with the western view found in Summa Theologica Question 36 Article 2.

Also, as it was a common view in the east that the filioque makes the Holy Spirit lesser then the Son, this quote further shows that St. Symeon did not believe in the Filioque and in fact is probably reacting against it in this particular passage.

 

[jonnyws]

By Catholic I assume you mean the Roman view of the Filioque. This passage, if anything, indicates he does not agree with the Roman view. He is discussing the traditional Byzantine way of looking at the Three Hypostases. Each one has an attribute that the other does not and it ties it all in with the Father as the unity of it because only He is unbegotten and unspirited. This is in contrast with the western view found in Summa Theologica Question 36 Article 2.

Also, as it was a common view in the east that the filioque makes the Holy Spirit lesser then the Son, this quote further shows that St. Symeon did not believe in the Filioque and in fact is probably reacting against it in this particular passage.

That would be my reading as well. He even states at the end of the quote that the Son is begotton of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, there is no mention of the Filioque.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianus,

I am wondering if anyone knows if St. Symeon the New Theologian said anything explicitly regarding the Filioque. I am curious because of the following passage - in the Catechetical Discourses (p. 344 in the Paulist Press edition) where he seems to hint at an acceptance of the Catholic doctrine on the issue:

“If a name is attributed to One, it is by nature applied to the others, with the exception of the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or the terms beget, begotten, and proceeding, for these alone indisputably apply to the Holy Trinity by nature and in distinctive fashion. As for an interchange of names, or their reversal, or their change, that we are forbidden to speak about. These terms characterize the three Persons, so that in this way we cannot place the Son before the Father nor the Holy Ghost before the Son. We must speak of them together as “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” without the slightest difference of duration or time between them. The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds simultaneousy with the Father’s existence.”

I think you misread the quote. I highlighted the relevant portion above. He is not claiming that the Holy Ghost is “before the Son.”

I don’t see what filioque has to do with his statement. At best, it does not contradict what the Latins teach about Filioque.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. If you don’t mind my asking, are you an Eastern Catholic? I recall you stated something to that effect in a past post in another thread.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

By Catholic I assume you mean the Roman view of the Filioque. This passage, if anything, indicates he does not agree with the Roman view. He is discussing the traditional Byzantine way of looking at the Three Hypostases. Each one has an attribute that the other does not and it ties it all in with the Father as the unity of it because only He is unbegotten and unspirited. This is in contrast with the western view found in Summa Theologica Question 36 Article 2.

Also, as it was a common view in the east that the filioque makes the Holy Spirit lesser then the Son, this quote further shows that St. Symeon did not believe in the Filioque and in fact is probably reacting against it in this particular passage.

What exactly about the Summa’s Ques 36, Art. 2, is “in contrast” with the Byzantine understanding of the Hypostases?

From my understanding of what St. Thomas was saying, he was simply distinguishing the Persons of the Godhead by their relations, which is exactly what all the Fathers have taught.

Blessings,
Marduk