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

[Eucharisted]

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.

Not true. The first theological debate was over the Jewish dietary law. And the first Christians did understand the Faith in spite of their different languages. It is only after the Great Schism that a great importance has been put on language, just as it is only after the Reformation that a great importance has been put on the exact wording of biblical verses.

 

[narrowpath]

For me, the case was closed when I could not find patristic evidence for the filioque, and heard from an Orthodox Christian why the filioque is more than just a difference of terms.

Add to this the Church of Rome’s disobedience to the canons of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (saying ‘the Pope had the authority to do it’ is not an arguement valid outside of the RCC), and I think we have a strong case for the Orthodox faith.

 

[mardukm]

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

I agree with Apostolic Tradition. Are you saying the Latin Tradition is the ONLY valid Tradition that preserves the Apostolic Faith?

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.

Greek is important because the New Testament was written in Greek. So why are you complaining?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Not true. The first theological debate was over the Jewish dietary law. And the first Christians did understand the Faith in spite of their different languages. It is only after the Great Schism that a great importance has been put on language, just as it is only after the Reformation that a great importance has been put on the exact wording of biblical verses.

Do you speak any other language fluently besides English? I assume not because you obviously don’t understand that some things in one language are not fully translatable into another language. Sometimes, words in the same language has different meanings depending on the cultural or theological context.

It seems you just want to impose your Latin mindset on theological matters and language without attempting to understand anything else. That’s just as bad as non-Latins who don’t want to even attempt to understand their Latin brethren. Unless you’re willing to understand the non-Latin Traditions, there seems to be no point in you wanting non-Latins to understand the Latin Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

For me, the case was closed when I could not find patristic evidence for the filioque, and heard from an Orthodox Christian why the filioque is more than just a difference of terms.

Sounds like you like to read EO apologetics. Have you ever read Catholic apologetics on the matter? I’d like to see exactly what these “more than just a difference of terms” reasons are. Care to explain your statement a bit more?

Add to this the Church of Rome’s disobedience to the canons of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (saying ‘the Pope had the authority to do it’ is not an arguement valid outside of the RCC), and I think we have a strong case for the Orthodox faith.

EO’xy has disobeyed them as well, so a case for it can’t be made just on that point.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

What I don’t understand about the filioque is that every Catholic priest I’ve asked about it has insisted that the Orthodox have it wrong when they claim that it entails double procession. They insist that it means “from the Father THROUGH the Son”, even though it doesn’t mean that in Latin, and we don’t SAY that in English. If the Creeds are meant to be an exposition of proper Christian doctrine, then why muddy the waters with something that is so misinterpreted? Someone in these arguments has to be right, and someone has to be wrong. If the Orthodox are wrong, then there’s no problem. If the Catholics are wrong, then we should get rid of this most unhelpful addition. This brings me to a question…

Now, this is probably the stupidest question ever asked by anyone ever, but…why can’t “we” just take it out? The other defense I have heard from priests (and I think I’ve read it on here, as well) is that it was inserted, after many years of official resistance, to combat specific heresies that threatened the Church in the West that did not exist in the East. If I take that to be true (and I have no reason not to), why can we not remove it now that those heresies are, I’m assuming, no longer the threat that they once were? Why do we keep it in the Latin Church?

Inquiring simpletons want to know!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dzheremi,

What I don’t understand about the filioque is that every Catholic priest I’ve asked about it has insisted that the Orthodox have it wrong when they claim that it entails double procession. They insist that it means “from the Father THROUGH the Son”, even though it doesn’t mean that in Latin, and we don’t SAY that in English.

Grammatically, filioque does not mean “through the Son” in Latin, but in the Latin theological language, it does indeed.

If the Creeds are meant to be an exposition of proper Christian doctrine, then why muddy the waters with something that is so misinterpreted? Someone in these arguments has to be right, and someone has to be wrong. If the Orthodox are wrong, then there’s no problem. If the Catholics are wrong, then we should get rid of this most unhelpful addition. This brings me to a question…

On this matter, I am a bit on the side of the Latins. I believe the “muddying,” as far as the English translation of the Creeds, is a result of the Easterns and Orientals co-opting the term “proceeds.” In truth, the English “proceeds” by etymology and definition is derived from the Latin procedere, not the Greek ekporeusan. So the confusion is the result of groups who depend on the Greek, yet utilize the Latin to present the Creed to the English speaking world. If we Easterns and Orientals want to maintain the Greek understanding, then we need to use a different word than “proceeds” in English. I’ve always felt “originates” is a better translation of ekporeusai than “proceeds.”

The fact is, “and the Son” is perfectly orthodox when used with the Latin procedit, as it is perfectly orthodox when used with the Greek proienai. It is only heterodox if used with the Greek ekproeusai. So we who depend on the Greek can’t go around accusing the Latins of causing confusion when they are using “and the Son” with “proceeds.” The problem is that we are not properly translating ekporeusai.

Now, this is probably the stupidest question ever asked by anyone ever, but…why can’t “we” just take it out? The other defense I have heard from priests (and I think I’ve read it on here, as well) is that it was inserted, after many years of official resistance, to combat specific heresies that threatened the Church in the West that did not exist in the East. If I take that to be true (and I have no reason not to), why can we not remove it now that those heresies are, I’m assuming, no longer the threat that they once were? Why do we keep it in the Latin Church?

The Arian heresy was the immediate cause of the local clarification. Ever heard of the JW’s and Iglesia Ni Cristo? These are the inheritors of the Arian heresy and they are alive and well in the Western Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[eOxy]

…

I hope these words deepen your understanding of the Faith.

Not at all.

But they do broaden my comprehention about the scope of senslessness of argument some westerners are able to expose without being embarassed themselves. I to wonder, though, how many are embarassed by such an exposition given by the representatives of their Faith.

 

[Ghosty]

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.

Then there is no point in disagreeing with SingleMomMonica, since all she meant (I am absolutely certain) is that the Faith did not change between the Nicene-Constinopolitan Creed and the addition of the filioque. If you don’t believe that the filioque was a substantial change in meaning, then you shouldn’t have a problem with what SMM said. I can only infer from the fact that you contradicted her that you DO believe that the filioque is a substantial change, and in that case you should also reasonably oppose the very substantial change made by the First Council of Constantinople, since it added much, much more than the filioque did, and any changes to the Nicene Creed are anathemized.

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.

This goes back to the point above. If Constantinople I didn’t add senses to the Creed that weren’t there before, then neither does the filioque. If it does, then it deserves the same condemnation, especially since it didn’t consider the Church in the West when it occured.

The word ‘filioque’ in Latin means the same thing as ‘and the Son’ in English, which is a very ambiguous statement.

No, it doesn’t. Latin is a very ambiguous language, and you have to understand the context of everything that is being spoken in order to understand the meaning. Latins have always and everywhere understood the meaning of filioque, but when it has been translated it has lost the context. This is true even when it is translated from the original Latin to “Latin Catholic English”. This is why the Vatican still usually insists on official documents being written in Latin.

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.

You’re reading this from an “English translation” point of view, not the viewpoint of the original Latin. That is why every Latin-speaking Catholic theologian in history disagrees with your interpretation, and insists that “and the Son” does not mean “procession from the Father and the Son in the same sense”. Even St. Augustine made the distinction by saying “the Father is ‘principaliter’” and the Council of Florence said that the “Father is the source of all Deity”, but didn’t say “and so is the Son”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

For me, the case was closed when I could not find patristic evidence for the filioque, and heard from an Orthodox Christian why the filioque is more than just a difference of terms.

What Patristic sources have you read? I have pointed to Greek fathers who supported the filioque in spirit, and also to those who have supported it in undeniable fact. I’ll look back over this thread to see if I’ve supplied the passages in this particulare discussion, though I know I’ve shown them in other discussion on this same issue.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you, dear brother Mardukm, for such a considered response. This is honestly already more of an explanation than I’ve ever received in the past.

Grammatically, filioque does not mean “through the Son” in Latin, but in the Latin theological language, it does indeed.

Maybe I am too much influenced by my Linguistics training, but it seems to me that it is a fair point that in the Creed, meant as it is to clarify the doctrine which we are to hold, we ought to say precisely what we mean, not have these equivocations where “and the Son” really means “through the Son”, Latin theological specifications aside.

On this matter, I am a bit on the side of the Latins. I believe the “muddying,” as far as the English translation of the Creeds, is a result of the Easterns and Orientals co-opting the term “proceeds.” In truth, the English “proceeds” by etymology and definition is derived from the Latin procedere, not the Greek ekporeusan. So the confusion is the result of groups who depend on the Greek, yet utilize the Latin to present the Creed to the English speaking world. If we Easterns and Orientals want to maintain the Greek understanding, then we need to use a different word than “proceeds” in English. I’ve always felt “originates” is a better translation of ekporeusai than “proceeds.”

The fact is, “and the Son” is perfectly orthodox when used with the Latin procedit, as it is perfectly orthodox when used with the Greek proienai. It is only heterodox if used with the Greek ekproeusai. So we who depend on the Greek can’t go around accusing the Latins of causing confusion when they are using “and the Son” with “proceeds.” The problem is that we are not properly translating ekporeusai.

This is all fine by me, as I’m sure you know Greek much better than I do.

Now my (rhetorical) question would be: Unless you are the first person ever to identify this mistranslation at the root of our misunderstanding, why have we not seen such an effort to properly translate the Creed as we have recently seen in the new translations prepared of the Mass as it is to be used in the Novus Ordo? It seems that if the RCC is so concerned about its relationship with the Orthodox, it would recognize the pressing need to correct this problem. After all, Orthodox theologians such as Bishop Kallistos Ware have also identified this as a primarily linguistic problem.

The Arian heresy was the immediate cause of the local clarification. Ever heard of the JW’s and Iglesia Ni Cristo? These are the inheritors of the Arian heresy and they are alive and well in the Western Church.

And the continued anathematization of these two groups and whoever else shares their theology is to take precedence over tangible progress in our work towards reconciliation with the second largest communion of churches in the world? Another rhetorical, of course…

 

[Ghosty]

dzheremi wrote:

What I don’t understand about the filioque is that every Catholic priest I’ve asked about it has insisted that the Orthodox have it wrong when they claim that it entails double procession. They insist that it means “from the Father THROUGH the Son”, even though it doesn’t mean that in Latin, and we don’t SAY that in English.

It does mean that in Latin, but it doesn’t mean that in English. You’re reading the Latin with English sentiment, yet all Latin theologians obviously do not because they say that the Latin doesn’t mean the same as the English.

Remember, the filioque is a Latin teaching that was taught before English even existed, so we can’t read it with English meaning.

Peace and God bless!

PS. You responded while I was working on my post, so allow me to tie in you response here:

Maybe I am too much influenced by my Linguistics training, but it seems to me that it is a fair point that in the Creed, meant as it is to clarify the doctrine which we are to hold, we ought to say precisely what we mean, not have these equivocations where “and the Son” really means “through the Son”, Latin theological specifications aside.

Latin theological specifications are precisely what is needed in understanding the filioque. In short, in Latin theological linguistics it DOES mean the same thing, and it DOES clarify the doctrine. That’s why no Latin theologian has been confused on this issue.

Now my (rhetorical) question would be: Unless you are the first person ever to identify this mistranslation at the root of our misunderstanding, why have we not seen such an effort to properly translate the Creed as we have recently seen in the new translations prepared of the Mass as it is to be used in the Novus Ordo? It seems that if the RCC is so concerned about its relationship with the Orthodox, it would recognize the pressing need to correct this problem. After all, Orthodox theologians such as Bishop Kallistos Ware have also identified this as a primarily linguistic problem.

The Latin Church has tried to correct this error, most notably at the Council of Florence where it said:

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; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.

This explaination has been around for centuries. It’s not new, and not something that has only recently been added to the theological exposition. It’s simply something that the Eastern Orthodox have refused to look at.

And the continued anathematization of these two groups and whoever else shares their theology is to take precedence over tangible progress in our work towards reconciliation with the second largest communion of churches in the world?

No, and that’s why the Latin Church has not insisted on the term being added by Eastern Orthodox seeking reconciliation. It’s not even added in the Latin document “Dominus Iesus”.

 

[eOxy]

… If Constantinople I didn’t add senses to the Creed that weren’t there before, then neither does the filioque.

Faulty logic.

I’ve heard about “guilty by association”. You try to produce “right by association”.

If it does, then it deserves the same condemnation, especially since it didn’t consider the Church in the West when it occured.

Are you saying that Nicene/Constantinoplean Fathers were ignorant about the infallability of Roman Pope according to the dogma proclaimed some 16 centuries afterwards? I completely agree with you.

 

[dzheremi]

It does mean that in Latin

“Filioque” means “through the Son”? This is news to me. I’m fairly sure I have a Latin grammar somewhere in my boxes of books…until I can get out to it, I’ll have to take your word for it.

but it doesn’t mean that in English. You’re reading the Latin with English sentiment, yet all Latin theologians obviously do not because they say that the Latin doesn’t mean the same as the English.

Remember, the filioque is a Latin teaching that was taught before English even existed, so we can’t read it with English meaning.

A fair point, but I’m actually thinking about what we DO say in English. If there is a closer translation of the Latin to be had, then we ought to be using that.

 

[Ghosty]

Faulty logic.

I’ve heard about “guilty by association”. You try to produce “right by association”.

No, I’m simply pointing out that the First Council of Constantinople added to the Nicene Creed what wasn’t there at the Council of Nicaea. If adding to the Creed is prohibited, then the Second Ecumenical Council was in error.

Are you saying that Nicene/Constantinoplean Fathers were ignorant about the infallability of Roman Pope according to the dogma proclaimed some 16 centuries afterwards? I completely agree with you.

I wasn’t even talking about Papal Infallibility, I was talking about adding to the Creed of Nicaea. The addition was accepted today by ALL Apostolic Christians without any talk or thought of the Papacy, and is accepted by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, so we must address addition itself without any consideration of the Papacy.

Tell me, do you recite the unadulterated Creed as composed at Nicaea, or do you recite the Nicene-Constinoplitan Creed at the Divine Liturgy? This is a rhetorical question, since I know you recite the Nicene-Constinoplitan Creed if you’re Eastern Orthodox.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

“Filioque” means “through the Son”? This is news to me. I’m fairly sure I have a Latin grammar somewhere in my boxes of books…until I can get out to it, I’ll have to take your word for it.

Don’t take my word for it, and certainly don’t take any modern grammatical text book as an authority. Read what the Latin Fathers actually did say; you can find their statements all over the internet and, even better, in books at your library. If they never considered the filioque to mean anything other than “through the Son”, certainly they must have said something that indicates a difference, and they knew Latin better than you, me, and every modern grammarian. Remember that every modern text book and English translation is has been written by people far removed from the common use of Latin.

A fair point, but I’m actually thinking about what we DO say in English. If there is a closer translation of the Latin to be had, then we ought to be using that.

There isn’t a closer translation to be had, at least not in a simple Creedal form. This is the difficulty of any translation, as Mardukm has already pointed out. The only way to translate it into English is by careful and considered explaination of terms, which is something that can’t be put into something as simple as a direct translation of the Creed.

What you’re confronting is the weakness of any human language to express the Truth about God. That’s why we’ve had numerous Councils and not just one. If one expression was enough to put to rest all heresies, then we would only have one Ecumenical Council, not three, not seven, not any more than one. Yet the Nestorians had room from the first two Councils to claim that they upheld the teaching of the Apostles, and the Arians even required a second Council to put them to rest.

Peace and God bless!

 

[eOxy]

No, I’m simply pointing out that the First Council of Constantinople added to the Nicene Creed what wasn’t there at the Council of Nicaea.

Exactly.

Unlike Toledo, or anyone else, it was authorized and competent to do so. It forged the Creed that was accepted “by everyone, everywhere and in all times”.

Your second thougths dated centuries afterwards are simply non-issue.

Finally, a personal note - please don’t give me your blessings, it disturbs me.

 

[Ghosty]

Exactly.Unlike Toledo, or anyone else, it was authorized and competent to do so. It forged the Creed that was accepted “by everyone, everywhere and in all times”.

Except it wasn’t. The Third Ecumenical Council only cited the Council of Nicaea, not the Creed as amended by Constantinople I. Was the Third Council mistaken in not even recognizing the additions of the Creed of the Second Council?

Your second thougths dated centuries afterwards are simply non-issue.

My “second thoughts” are actually dated to the St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, the former lived during the time of the aftermath of the First Council, and the later merely stated what he had learned from the likes of St. Athanasius.

Finally, a personal note - please don’t give me your blessings, it disturbs me.

I didn’t say “Ghosty bless”, I said “God bless”; if you’re disturbed by that, then I hope you don’t attend the Divine Liturgy!

Peace and God bless!

 

[eOxy]

Except it wasn’t. The Third Ecumenical Council only cited the Council of Nicaea, not the Creed as amended by Constantinople I. Was the Third Council mistaken in not even recognizing the additions of the Creed of the Second Council?

The third council could not have recognized the Creed “as amended”, only “as defined”. But the 4th, 5th and 6th are explicit and clear. Are you saying they were mistaken?

My “second thoughts” are actually dated to the St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, the former lived during the time of the aftermath of the First Council, and the later merely stated what he had learned from the likes of St. Athanasius.

False.

I didn’t say “Ghosty bless”, I said “God bless”; if you’re disturbed by that, then I hope you don’t attend the Divine Liturgy!

O.K. I see you like disturbing people. Or it is just aimed at Orthodox? Never mind, I’ll make an effort to protect myself from that.

 

[Ghosty]

The third council could not have recognized the Creed “as amended”, only “as defined”. But the 4th, 5th and 6th are explicit and clear. Are you saying they were mistaken?

The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Ecumenical Councils cite the Creed as amended at Constantinople I, not the Creed as stated at Nicaea. If you don’t believe me then read the actual Creed as propounded at Nicaea; you’ll find that it’s lacking portions that are said at every Divine Liturgy.

If “adding” to the Creed is wrong in itself, then the Second Ecumenical Council and the rest all stand condemned, as you do whenever you recite the Creed at the Divine Liturgy.

False.

I don’t have time tonight to dig up and copy/paste the quotes of these Fathers, so you’ll have to indulge me until I can post again. In the mean time, feel free to search the forums for the previous citations of these Fathers in support of the filioque. I don’t say this as a cop-out, but merely to save my sleep-deprived brain.

O.K. I see you like disturbing people. Or it is just aimed at Orthodox? Never mind, I’ll make an effort to protect myself from that.

I’ve never met an Orthodox person who is disturbed by “God bless you”, not on the internet and not in my own experience of attending the Divine Liturgy with Eastern Orthodox. If you’re disturbed by my prayer that God bless you, then may God protect you and keep you from all evil spirits that haunt you.