The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: For the Orthodox

[Nine_Two]

I don’t know the quote that Eucharisted is talking about, but I can give you three Greco-Eastern Saints who taught that the Holy Spirit is eternally “through the Son”.

First, St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Then St. Maximos the Confessor:

and finally, St. John of Damascus:

This “through the Son” was taught by Eastern Fathers, and not only in the temporal manifestation of the Holy Spirit. This is why the Ukrainians, when joining with Rome, said this:

The talk of “temporal manifestation” by others completely misses the point, and the genuine teaching of the filioque.

Peace and God bless!

I think you’re reading into those what you want to see. The first distinctly says the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, despite the interaction of the Father and the Son. The second says the same even more directly “The Father is the cause of both the son and the spirit,” The third is closer to your point, but falls short of saying the Holy Spirit is created by the Father and the Son, which is the whole issue regarding the Filioque.

 

[PJM]

=Eucharisted-The Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son.

And because the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son,
He comes from the Father and the Son.

If He only came from the Father, than He could not come through the Son,
and so He could not come from the Father and the Son.

But because He comes from the Father, through the Son,
Because the Son is the Person through whom the Spirit comes,
He comes from the Father and the Son.

I hope these words deepen your understanding of the Faith.

***CCC 253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”. The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature ***

234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith”. The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men “and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin”.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.

266 “Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal” (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

258 The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same operation: “The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle.” However, each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property. Thus the Church confesses, following the New Testament, “one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are”. It is above all the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit that show forth the properties of the divine persons.

Love and prayers,

 

[Ghosty]

I think you’re reading into those what you want to see. The first distinctly says the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, despite the interaction of the Father and the Son. The second says the same even more directly “The Father is the cause of both the son and the spirit,” The third is closer to your point, but falls short of saying the Holy Spirit is created by the Father and the Son, which is the whole issue regarding the Filioque.

The teaching of the filioque is not, and has never been, that the Holy Spirit is “created by the Father and the Son”. Furthermore, the filioque does not mean that the Father alone is not the Source of both the Son and Holy Spirit.

The Latin belief is that the Father alone is the Source of all deity, that is of the Father and the Son. Don’t believe me, just look at the Council of Florence:

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations

The teaching of the filioque is simply this: the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, who is the Source, through the Son. This is exactly what all three quotes from Eastern Fathers say as well. The teaching of the filioque has never been that the Father and Son are together the Source, nor that the Holy Spirit is the result of a combination of Father and Son. That is the mistaken belief of the Eastern Orthodox which was addressed at the Council of Florence.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Time to bone up on Dogmatics!
oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/D2d.htm

This covers the theological aspects of the arguments. Actually covers both Catholic and Reform viewpoints on the filioque along with Orthodox. This drives it home:

And this is the Cappadocian response to the Muslims and the Jews who claim Christians worship three Gods. The concept of the “monarchy of the Father” is a bulwark against those who level charges of polytheism against the Christians.

The website, unfortunately, doesn’t address the actual theology of the filioque as defined by the Latin Church, but rather a strawman. Their notion of what the Persons being relations means is particularily sloppy; the teaching “opposition of relations” has never meant that Divine Persons come to be by relations between two things, but rather that Persons are differentiated by the fact that they sit at opposite ends of a single relationship, i.e. Father begets Son, and therefore Father can’t be Son. I wouldn’t recommend that website as an explaination of the issue, since it doesn’t even get the basics of Latin Trinitarian formula correct.

Since the Latin tradition ALSO says dogmatically that the Father is the only Source, the entire thrust of that webpages argument is baseless. I don’t know who wrote the article in question, but it needs a lot of help to be servicable.

Peace and God bless!

 

[SingleMomMonica]

How did he add it validly? Did not one of the Ecumenical Councils centuries beforehand say that only an Ecumenical Council could alter the Creed? Did not Pope John VIII fight against the Filioque from being added to the Creed? Wasn’t there a Pope that before 1000 had the creed permanently etched in stone without the Filioque?

Hmmm…

In Christ,
Andrew

Hi Andrew,

The Pope added it validly because it was not a change of the content of the Creed, but a clarification. Not one iota of the Creed was changed.

The Pope added it validly because Christ Himself gave the Keys of Authority to St. Peter and his successors to speak infallibly in matters of Faith and Morals. The Creed is a matter of Faith and the Pope was Infallible in adding the clause “Filioque”.

If you do not believe the Pope is Infallible to do such a thing, then argue that matter, not the contect of the Creed.

 

[John_Larocque]

Since the Latin tradition ALSO says dogmatically that the Father is the only Source, the entire thrust of that webpages argument is baseless. I don’t know who wrote the article in question, but it needs a lot of help to be servicable.

I did a bit of digging on the website, the author is actually Metropolitan John Zizoulas.

There’s a filioque essay on the Byzantine Catholic “Taboric Light” as well, and covers the Council of Florence from that perspective - some of it seems like hair-splitting, but it digs into the actual Florentine wording:

geocities.com/apotheoun

I read the essay a month ago and somehow lost track of the link but found my way back to it today. There’s also some interesting essays on Islamic Determinism as well. The author is a Melkite Catholic.

 

[Ghosty]

I did a bit of digging on the website, the author is actually Metropolitan John Zizoulas.

I’ve read things by Metropolitan John before, so I’m not surprised that he’s the author of this misunderstanding.

There’s a filioque essay on the Byzantine Catholic “Taboric Light” as well, and covers the Council of Florence from that perspective - some of it seems like hair-splitting, but it digs into the actual Florentine wording:

geocities.com/apotheoun

I read the essay a month ago and somehow lost track of the link but found my way back to it today. There’s also some interesting essays on Islamic Determinism as well. The author is a Melkite Catholic.

The author isn’t a Melkite Catholic, he’s a Ruthenian convert with some very controversial views who often tries to utilize the Melkite Church to back him up (my Melkite Bishop brushed off Apotheoun’s views quite bruskly, and this Bishop was Sayedna Zoghby’s partner in working on the “Zoghby Initiative”). He posts on this forum as Apotheoun, and he and I have gone round and round for years.

To be completely blunt, I’d put less stock in what he writes than what Metropolitan John writes. I’ve said it directly to him before, but his approach to Latin theology is severely lacking. His views are entirely his own, as is his understanding of theology (though I supose there are some others with him, but none represent any Church’s, Catholic or Orthodox, official opinions). Of course the same can be said for me as well, except when I make an effort to cite official teachings, or check with my Bishop about certain ideas and relay that info back.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nine_Two]

The teaching of the filioque is simply this: the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, who is the Source, through the Son. This is exactly what all three quotes from Eastern Fathers say as well. The teaching of the filioque has never been that the Father and Son are together the Source, nor that the Holy Spirit is the result of a combination of Father and Son. That is the mistaken belief of the Eastern Orthodox which was addressed at the Council of Florence.

Peace and God bless!

Filioque means “and the son” not “through the son” the meaning changes considerably. However as pointed out the filioque was never really opposed until it was forced on the east, meaning it is the usurping of authority that was the real root issue.

 

[Ghosty]

Filioque means “and the son” not “through the son” the meaning changes considerably. However as pointed out the filioque was never really opposed until it was forced on the east, meaning it is the usurping of authority that was the real root issue.

1. The meanings are the same in Latin, the language of the filioque. The numerous clarifications and dogmatic definitions have made this painfully clear. For a modern, English example, does gasoline come from the pump, or from the ground? Both can be said equally, so “the gas comes from the pump and the ground” is absolutely correct. It is also correct to say “the gas comes through the pump, from the ground”.

While I agree that the use of “and” can be easily misunderstood, it can’t be understood as anything other than “through” given the countless Latin explainations of the issue. The fact that many Eastern Orthodox continue to insist that “and” means that both the Father and the Son are Source is unfortunate, and can only charitably be chalked up to ignorance over what the Latin Church has continually said.

1. The filioque was opposed LONG before it was forced on the East (which wasn’t until the days of Unia, and even then it wasn’t universally forced). There has not been a time when the Latin Church has forced a universal change in the Nicene Creed; it has been a change in the Latin usage of it, and the Latin Church demanded that the change be accepted as valid. In fact, the Latin Church has “forced” the non-Latin Churches to NOT use the filioque, especially in Greek since the filioque when used in Greek is heretical (the Latin terms in the Creed have a different nuance).

Peace and God bless!

 

[John_Larocque]

The author isn’t a Melkite Catholic, he’s a Ruthenian convert with some very controversial views who often tries to utilize the Melkite Church to back him up (my Melkite Bishop brushed off Apotheoun’s views quite bruskly, and this Bishop was Sayedna Zoghby’s partner in working on the “Zoghby Initiative”). He posts on this forum as Apotheoun, and he and I have gone round and round for years.

Hmmm… I misread this very long blog which FIRST described him as a Melkite (I originally mistook him for Orthodox BTW):
ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2007/01/divide.html

As you cycle down towards the bottom (which I eventually did) the one writer corrected the other in the same way.

There were references in that particular blog (Ochlophobist) where people are asked to choose between Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky and… Fr. John Neuhaus and Fr. Alexander Shmemann, which led me to reading this beautiful tribute to the latter by the former at “First Things”. But it was symptomatic of what the author described as the divide between Catholic and Orthodox. Don’t ask me to explain why all of this is linked together but it is. Isn’t the Internet a great place?

Edit: My goodness these are previous monster threads (where Apotheoun opined on filioque) - what a merry-go-round… :
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=256215
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=283644

Peace and God bless!

You too!

 

[Harpazo]

Hi Andrew,

The Pope added it validly because it was not a change of the content of the Creed, but a clarification. Not one iota of the Creed was changed.

The Pope added it validly because Christ Himself gave the Keys of Authority to St. Peter and his successors to speak infallibly in matters of Faith and Morals. The Creed is a matter of Faith and the Pope was Infallible in adding the clause “Filioque”.

If you do not believe the Pope is Infallible to do such a thing, then argue that matter, not the contect of the Creed.

I can address your points as soon as you address mine. Am I the only one that sees a contradiction? The actions of Popes make the faith to appear schizophrenic. A Pope John VIII condemns the Filioque by saying, more or less, that it is a “soul-destroying heresy, and those who supported it were falsifiers of the faith and had their portion with Judas.”

Only to have an endorsement of it about century or so later by allowing it to be chanted in the Creed at Rome. This apparent abrogation does not cast the Roman Church in a good light at all.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[John_Larocque]

There’s a bit more filoque round and round the merry-go-round here, with appropriate quotations from the Union of Brest, Metropolitan Zizoulas, a Ukrainian Greek Catholic document and others…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=220620

I really don’t know if there’s much more I can learn on this.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Eucharisted,

As I’ve stated before in another thread, the problem is not “filioque” but the distinction between the Greek term ekporeusai, on the one hand, and the Latin term procedit on the other.

Ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, ontological origination. If one uses the term procedit (as it is used in the Latin Creed - which is equivalent to the Greek proienai), “through the Son” and “And the Son” may be equated. But if one uses the term ekporeusai (as it is used in the Greek Creed), the two phrases can never be equated.

The fact is:
To an Eastern or Oriental, “through the Son” and “And the Son” can never be equated when used in the Creed.

I respect and understand that to Latins, “through the Son” and “And the Son” are equivalent. That is because your Tradition has been using procedit from the beginning. And you may find Orientals, given the several Oriental Fathers who use “And the Son” with proienai in their works, will perhaps be more understanding than the Easterns with the Latin understanding. However, I would ask that you respect the fact that it would be simply impossible credally (from the Eastern and Oriental perspective) to equate the two phrases.

So I really had no problem with your original statement per se. But I wish you had clarified that you were only trying to explain the Latin understanding according to the Latin terminology. As it is, given that you were addressing the Orthodox, it seemed as though you were trying to impose your Latin perspective on the Easterns and Orientals - and as stated, “through the Son” and “And the Son” can never be equated when used in the Eastern/Oriental Creed.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S.Kudos to brother Ghosty for demonstrating the patristic source of “through the Son.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear SingleMomMonica,

Bottom line is: The Pope added the clause “and the Son” aka Filioque officially to the Creed.

The only room for argument is: Does the Pope have the Authority to act Infallibily on matters of Faith and Morals which would allow him to change the Creed?

Catholics of all Catholic Rite Churches say a resounding: “YES!”

Orthodox Churches say: “NO!”

Let’s skip the argument caused by the heart of the true issue: Filioque and jump straight to the heart of the issue itself: Authority of the Pope.

If the Pope does have Infallibility in matters of Faith and Morals, then he can certainly change the Creed which is our statement of Faith and therefore our understanding of the Triune God.

First, the idea of “changing the Creed” would only be relevant if the change was universally imposed. The Pope did not do this, but made a clarification merely for the Latin Church. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, some lines are not recited in the Creed depending on the Liturgical season. This is an internal liturgical decision of the COC that does not affect any other Church, and does not change the Faith of the Church.

Second, the idea of “changing the Creed” would only be relevant if the Faith contained in the Creed was changed - as stated it was only a clarification. The Pope did not do this (and the Pope CANNOT do this).

Ergo, the Pope did not change the Creed.

I think it’s dangerous to defend the use of filioque in the Latin Church by claiming that the Pope can change the Creed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Hi Andrew,

The Pope added it validly because it was not a change of the content of the Creed, but a clarification. Not one iota of the Creed was changed.

The Pope added it validly because Christ Himself gave the Keys of Authority to St. Peter and his successors to speak infallibly in matters of Faith and Morals. The Creed is a matter of Faith and the Pope was Infallible in adding the clause “Filioque”.

If you do not believe the Pope is Infallible to do such a thing, then argue that matter, not the contect of the Creed.

Yes, the content of the creed was changed. Otherwise there would have been no purpose in adding the word filioque. It adds that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. The original says simply that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is a difference.

In addition it is an ambiguous statement. From the Father through the Son is not the straightforward reading. The most obvious reading is a double procession.

The main problem in the change is that the pope had the audacity to change the creed of the whole Church. It was a uniting factor of the whole Church. It was used to battle heresy and if anyone taught contrary to the creed of the Church then they were condemned. You can see this in the fact that St. Cyril opposes the Nestorians by refering to the Creed. But the pope introduced division by adding the word ‘filioque’ to the creed in Rome rather than suppressing the change in the west.

 

[Ghosty]

Yes, the content of the creed was changed. Otherwise there would have been no purpose in adding the word filioque.

You can only say this if you agree that the Creed of Constantinople was a change in content from the Creed of Nicaea, and if that’s the case then the Creed of Constantinople falls under anathema.

In addition it is an ambiguous statement. From the Father through the Son is not the straightforward reading. The most obvious reading is a double procession.

Not in Latin, it isn’t. In Greek, yes, but then the filioque wasn’t originally from the Greek. If it was the obvious reading in Latin then SOME Latin theologian would have taken it as meaning double-procession, but nowhere in history is this found to be true. Please show us such a case if you’re going to make this claim.

Note that I’m not interested in the other claims made in the post that you’re refuting; I’ve disagreed openly with many of the claims, such as on Papal authority, on other threads. I’m merely talking about your refutation of that post.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Harpazo]

Not in Latin, it isn’t. In Greek, yes, but then the filioque wasn’t originally from the Greek. If it was the obvious reading in Latin then SOME Latin theologian would have taken it as meaning double-procession, but nowhere in history is this found to be true. Please show us such a case if you’re going to make this claim.

Note that I’m not interested in the other claims made in the post that you’re refuting; I’ve disagreed openly with many of the claims, such as on Papal authority, on other threads. I’m merely talking about your refutation of that post.

Peace and God bless!

Isn’t “-que” an enclitic for “and”? If the ones that added it meant “through the son” why didn’t they say “per filio”? It does sound ambiguous to me.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[jimmy]

You can only say this if you agree that the Creed of Constantinople was a change in content from the Creed of Nicaea, and if that’s the case then the Creed of Constantinople falls under anathema.

The creed from Nicaea to Contantinople was changed. That doesn’t imply that it contradicts the creed as stated at Nicaea nor did I imply that the addition of the filioque contradicted the original creed. But it still remains that the filioque introduces a different sense to the creed than was originally there. And that is very serious considering that the whole Church wasn’t considered when the word was added.

Not in Latin, it isn’t. In Greek, yes, but then the filioque wasn’t originally from the Greek. If it was the obvious reading in Latin then SOME Latin theologian would have taken it as meaning double-procession, but nowhere in history is this found to be true. Please show us such a case if you’re going to make this claim.

Note that I’m not interested in the other claims made in the post that you’re refuting; I’ve disagreed openly with many of the claims, such as on Papal authority, on other threads. I’m merely talking about your refutation of that post.

Peace and God bless!

The word ‘filioque’ in Latin means the same thing as ‘and the Son’ in English, which is a very ambiguous statement. The -que on the end is an enclitic that simply means ‘and’. It implies that the procession from the Father and the Son is in the same sense. It implies that they are equal and parallel. It doesn’t imply procession through the Son.

 

[Eucharisted]

That is because your Tradition has been using procedit from the beginning.

This is an interesting statement. Are you saying you don’t agree with Apostolic Tradition?

The Catholic Church interprets the procession or spiration of the Holy Spirit according to the ancient Tradition of the Apostles. The reason most Orthodox don’t understand this is because they give to Greek an importance which Christians have never given to any tongue on Earth. For example, the Christians who spoke Hebrew and the Christians who spoke Greek in the early Church both understood, despite their difference languages, the Christian Faith, and did not fight over terms, for they knew the limits of human language.

 

[jimmy]

This is an interesting statement. Are you saying you don’t agree with Apostolic Tradition?

The Catholic Church interprets the procession or spiration of the Holy Spirit according to the ancient Tradition of the Apostles. The reason most Orthodox don’t understand this is because they give to Greek an importance which Christians have never given to any tongue on Earth. For example, the Christians who spoke Hebrew and the Christians who spoke Greek in the early Church both understood, despite their difference languages, the Christian Faith, and did not fight over terms, for they knew the limits of human language.

Every theological debate in the history of the Church was a debate about terms. The debate at Nicaea was over homoousios or homooisios and other terms. At Chalcedon it was over ‘ek duo physis’ or ‘in duo physis’. Terms are necessary for the comprehension of the faith and for an orthodox faith.