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

[mardukm]

Dear brother 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.

I’m glad I could help.

As for the rest, brother Ghosty has given great responses, but permit these following replies from me anyway:

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.

As you have linguistics training, then you should be fully aware that certain words can never be understood on their own outside of a larger context, especially in the process of translation. I am fluent in four languages, and, trust me or not, there are certain words that one would completely misunderstand unless they are translated in context, and not just in the context of the syntax of the sentence, but even in a much larger context of situation or culture. For example, in Greek, kai, depending on context, can have two very opposite meanings - namely, “and” or “but.” And one can’t simply depend on the syntax of the sentence, but the entire situation in which the sentence is used.

As brother Ghosty has pointed out, filioque is indeed perfectly equivalent to per filium in the Latin theological context. It might not be obvious to the non-Latin, but that is where the spiritual fruit of understanding must come into play. To further build on what brother Ghosty has said, “proceeds from the Father and the Son” is indeed equivalent to “proceeds from the Father through the Son” because the term procedit perfectly accomodates both meanings in its definition. This is where context comes into play, where one cannot depend on the term filioque alone to interpret the phrase, but must interpret filioque with procedit to understand the legitimacy of understanding the phrase in English as “proceeds from the Father through the Son.”

BTW, I did a poll in the Apologetics Forum about a month ago, with over 30 respondents (not as much as desired, of course). I asked what the term filioque meant in the Latin Creed. One option I gave was “Originates from the Father and the Son.” Not one person chose that option as the proper understanding of the term.

Now my (rhetorical) question would be: Unless you are the first person ever to identify this mistranslation at the root of our misunderstanding,

The first person I am aware of who recognized the mistranslation was St. Maximos the Confessor, who inquired of the matter to the Latins, and recognized that there was really no linguistic equivalence in the Latin language for the Greek ekporeusai. His inquiries also assured him that the phrase in the Latin Creed containing filioque in no way meant to deny the Arche of the Father. So the matter did not divide the Easterns and Westerns - of course, until Patriarch Photius resurrected the dead issue about 200 years later.

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?

But the Latin Creed is already properly translated. The problem is that the Greek Creed is not properly translated, for it is still using “proceeds” as if that was the proper translation of ekporeusai.

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 Catholic Church issued an official clarification of the filioque clause at the Pope’s initiative during the pontificate of HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory almost 15 years ago, which fully explained this linguistic difference. I don’t know why more Orthodox are not aware of it (heck, I don’t know why more Catholics are not aware of it since it was an official promulgation).

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…

The JW’s and Iglesia Ni Kristo are problems originating in the Western Church. I don’t know why the Easterns (or Orientals) would or should try to interfere in that matter. As long as the Latin Church recognizes that filioque does not belong in the Greek Creed, then what is the problem? Easterns and Orientals want Latins to understand and respect our Traditions. Why shouldn’t we offer the Latins the same understanding and respect for their Tradition? Any other solution would be hypocrisy, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

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.

As I said above, the creed belongs to the whole Church. It is a uniting factor of the Church against which heretics are opposed. The difference between the change of the filioque and that at Constantinople is that the whole Church decided to develop aspects of the creed at Constantinople whereas with the filioque it was one particular Church deciding that the creed was insufficient. It was a grave decision, whether it contradicted the original or not.

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.

Yes, Constantinople does add things to the creed that weren’t there before. The creed of Nicaea doesn’t talk about the procession of the Spirit or the perpetual nature of the kingdom of Christ or several other things. Refer to the above answer.

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.

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”.

The filioque is justified because it was supposedly used as a defense against a western form of Arianism. The whole reason it can be used as a defense against Arianism is because it equates the action of the Father with that of the Son. It says, what the Father does so does the Son. It declares that a characteristic that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son, therefore the Son is God. If it does not do this then it does not battle Arianism as it is claimed. Thus the very inclusion of the term in the creed indicates an equality of meaning.

Maybe theologians made a distinction but the grammar still remains ambiguous. Filioque means and the Son in its strict meaning. Maybe you can develop a line of thought that means through the Son but the words mean what they mean. If they want the east to accept that it is the same as through the Son then why don’t they change it to per filium? If the term is more precise it seems wise to use it instead of a term that continues to be a matter of dispute.

 

[Ghosty]

Here’s a couple quotes from St. Athanasius and St. Cyril that I couldn’t get to last night.

From St. Athanasius’ “Letters to Serapion”:

The peculiar relationship of the Son to the Father, such as we know it - we will find that the Spirit has this, to the Son. And since the Son says, “everything whatsoever that the Father has is mine,” we will discover all these things also in the Spirit, through the Son.

…

Hence, if the Son, because of His peculiar relationship to the Father, and because of His being the Offspring of the Father’s own substance, is not a creature, but is of the same substance of the Father, then neither is the Holy SApirit a creature. To say otherwise were impious, because of His peculiar relationship to the Son, and because out of Him He is given to all, and what He has is of the Son.

You may not like it, or even agree with it, but the fact is that St. Athanasius defended the Divinity of the Holy Spirit by saying that He is “of the Son”, and that His relationship to the Son mirrors the relationship of the Son to the Father, and that the Holy Spirit receives from the Father “through the Son”.

Now for St. Cyril of Alexandria, from the “Treasury of the Holy Trinity”:

Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the Divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it.

There are several other Greek-writing Saints who give explicit testimony to this, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Epiphanius, but since the dispute was over these two I’ll leave it at this.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

Maybe theologians made a distinction but the grammar still remains ambiguous. Filioque means and the Son in its strict meaning. Maybe you can develop a line of thought that means through the Son but the words mean what they mean. If they want the east to accept that it is the same as through the Son then why don’t they change it to per filium? If the term is more precise it seems wise to use it instead of a term that continues to be a matter of dispute.

The problem is not filioque. The point of contention properly revolves around the fact that procedit does not mean the same thing as ekporeusai, a fact which was recognized by St. Maximos and prevented schism at that time - almost 200 years before Patriarch Photius revived a dead issue. It is a refusal to exercise the spiritual fruit of understanding that is preventing resolution of the matter.

Changing filioque to per filium will do nothing to resolve the basic point at issue - that procedit is not exactly identical to ekporeusai (though both are perfectly orthodox). Such a change would be nothing more than a band aid, and the wound would still remain.

The best solution is education.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

As I said above, the creed belongs to the whole Church. It is a uniting factor of the Church against which heretics are opposed. The difference between the change of the filioque and that at Constantinople is that the whole Church decided to develop aspects of the creed at Constantinople whereas with the filioque it was one particular Church deciding that the creed was insufficient. It was a grave decision, whether it contradicted the original or not.

I wonder why it didn’t bother St. Maximos, and the matter was settled for almost 200 years until Patriarch Photius, who didn’t understand Latin, decided to resurrect a dead issue.

Obviously, until Photius’ time, the issue of filioque was properly viewed as a matter within the Western Church that did not affect the Faith of the entire Church. If it was one particular Church deciding the creed for the whole Church, then I can see your point. But that’s not what happened. It was one particular Church making a clarification for that selfsame particular Church. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, the entire Creed is not recited depending on the Liturgical season. Are you going to condemn the Coptic Orthodox Church for making a decision for the entire Church?

The filioque is justified because it was supposedly used as a defense against a western form of Arianism. The whole reason it can be used as a defense against Arianism is because it equates the action of the Father with that of the Son. It says, what the Father does so does the Son. It declares that a characteristic that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son, therefore the Son is God. If it does not do this then it does not battle Arianism as it is claimed. Thus the very inclusion of the term in the creed indicates an equality of meaning.

Not exactly. The doctrine of filioque does not equate the action of the Father and the Son. Rather it simply asserts the participation of the Son in a certain divine action in Eternity - i.e., the ETERNAL procession of the Holy Spirit. So the divinity of the Son is not defended on the basis of equality with the Father, but rather on the basis of His eternal quality.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

The difference between the change of the filioque and that at Constantinople is that the whole Church decided to develop aspects of the creed at Constantinople whereas with the filioque it was one particular Church deciding that the creed was insufficient.

Actually, the Council of Constantinople was a local Eastern Council that didn’t even purport to be Ecumenical; it was adopted as such much later, after the condemnation of any changes being made to the original Nicene Creed. This may seem to be beside the point, especially since I’m not arguing for the appropriateness of adding the filioque unilaterally, I’m merely pointing out that the filioque can’t be rejected on such terms without ALSO condemning what was done at the Council of Constantinople. Another point to remember is that the Council of Constantinople didn’t just add to the Creed, it cut the last portion out, ironically the portion that directly addressed Arius’ argument. The Creed today is more ambiguous because of the Council of Constantinople, yet nobody seems to be up in arms over it.

The filioque is justified because it was supposedly used as a defense against a western form of Arianism. The whole reason it can be used as a defense against Arianism is because it equates the action of the Father with that of the Son. It says, what the Father does so does the Son. It declares that a characteristic that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son, therefore the Son is God.

The filioque was around a LONG time before the addition of it to the Creed at Toledo; it goes back at least to St. Hilary of Poitiers. If it is justified, it is because it is true and natural to the sense of the Creed, just as the additions at Constantinople. Since the filioque was common in the writings of the Saints and in Baptismal creeds for two centuries before the Council of Toledo, it’s a bit ingenuous to claim it was added at that time.

But yes, it does claim that as the Father does, so does the Son; that is the exact language of St. Athanasius on the matter, incidentally. It is one single action, and that’s why it’s not a double-procession, but it being one action and motion doesn’t mean that the Father and the Son are the same for doing the same thing (namely Spirating), or that they have the same relation to the Spiration (the Father is the Source of the action, the Son the recipient of the “power”, or for lack of a better term a participant in the action). The filioque doesn’t imply what you claim, except insofar as it doesn’t explicitely rule against it, but then we could also point out that the Nicene Creed doesn’t explicitey say the Holy Spirit is God, either. If the filioque is to be faulted for what it doesn’t say, then we can fault every portion of the Creed since every portion has required context and understanding aside from the words said (Arius was even able to twist the Nicene Creed to his own defense, which is why he got in well with the Emperor who sanctioned it to begin with, and turned him and his sons to Arianism).

Maybe theologians made a distinction but the grammar still remains ambiguous.

It’s called Latin, it’s something you have to deal with this language, and Latin is not unique in this aspect. It’s a context-heavy language, and all the context of history shows that the Latins never meant it in the heretical way that non-Latins took it; St. Maximos easily saw this fact, and so should we.

Maybe you can develop a line of thought that means through the Son but the words mean what they mean.

Yes, and they mean procedere, which is common to the Father and the Son even in Greek, according to all the Fathers and Saints. There are countless uses of the Greek equivalent of procedere (proienai) being used for the Father and Son together in relation to the Holy Spirit. The Latins can’t be accused of error for literally saying the exact same thing as the Greek Fathers, even if they can be accused of other things in relation to how the filioque was added.

If they want the east to accept that it is the same as through the Son then why don’t they change it to per filium? If the term is more precise it seems wise to use it instead of a term that continues to be a matter of dispute.

Because there are those in the East who now deny even “through the Son” as it is intended by the filioque, and as taught by the Greek Fathers. As Mardukm says, such a change would merely cover the festering problem, which is the question of the orthodoxy of the teaching itself, not the choice of terms.

Peace and God bless!

 

[narrowpath]

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?

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

Blessings,
Marduk

I read the Catholic apologetics (on Catholic Answers and other places) before reading the EO ones. I tried to get answers from both sides to the other sides arguements, and after a while, the Orthodox case simply was much stronger. The first arguement is f course when our Lord says that He will send the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit “Who proceeds from the Father”. He doesn’t say ‘the Father and I’. Yes, I realize that Catholics can say that He proceeds from the Father without mentioning the Son, but this seems a weak arguement. Also, there is not really anything from the Church fathers before St. Augustine using the filioque (looked at this from both perspectives as well). In the west, Pope Leo III refused to use it in the liturgy, and in 1014 the German emperor was surprised to see that it was not used in the roman liturgy. Another theological problem is that, while the Orthodox can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, we cannot say that He proceeds from the Father and the Son because the latter indicates an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, whereas the former states the eternal procession is from the Father alone, while the Son sends the Holy Spirit to guide us in His Love.

 

[NoWings]

I read the Catholic apologetics (on Catholic Answers and other places) before reading the EO ones. I tried to get answers from both sides to the other sides arguements, and after a while, the Orthodox case simply was much stronger. The first arguement is f course when our Lord says that He will send the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit “Who proceeds from the Father”. He doesn’t say ‘the Father and I’. Yes, I realize that Catholics can say that He proceeds from the Father without mentioning the Son, but this seems a weak arguement. Also, there is not really anything from the Church fathers before St. Augustine using the filioque (looked at this from both perspectives as well). In the west, Pope Leo III refused to use it in the liturgy, and in 1014 the German emperor was surprised to see that it was not used in the roman liturgy. Another theological problem is that, while the Orthodox can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, we cannot say that He proceeds from the Father and the Son because the latter indicates an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, whereas the former states the eternal procession is from the Father alone, while the Son sends the Holy Spirit to guide us in His Love.

I think everything you’ve mentioned has already been covered in the other posts in this thread.

 

[Ghosty]

I think everything you’ve mentioned has already been covered in the other posts in this thread.

Indeed, and several claims are shown to be utterly false, like the claim that the filioque came along with St. Augustine. It was taught by St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, and St. Gregory of Nyssa all before the time of St. Augustine, and they all spoke of the eternal procession.

That is the plain fact of history; the “Augustine argument” is a much later polemic.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother narrowpath,

I read the Catholic apologetics (on Catholic Answers and other places) before reading the EO ones. I tried to get answers from both sides to the other sides arguements, and after a while, the Orthodox case simply was much stronger. The first arguement is f course when our Lord says that He will send the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit “Who proceeds from the Father”. He doesn’t say ‘the Father and I’. Yes, I realize that Catholics can say that He proceeds from the Father without mentioning the Son, but this seems a weak arguement. Also, there is not really anything from the Church fathers before St. Augustine using the filioque (looked at this from both perspectives as well). In the west, Pope Leo III refused to use it in the liturgy, and in 1014 the German emperor was surprised to see that it was not used in the roman liturgy. Another theological problem is that, while the Orthodox can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, we cannot say that He proceeds from the Father and the Son because the latter indicates an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, whereas the former states the eternal procession is from the Father alone, while the Son sends the Holy Spirit to guide us in His Love.

Your explanation is a straw man, I’m afraid, because it demonstrates that you don’t understand the difference between procedit and ekporeusai. As long as you keep listening to EO apologetics that likewise fail to understand and make that distinction, then we can’t move forward in unity. Is that what you want?

I would explain to you the problem with your explanation above. The only thing is, I had already done this earlier in the thread. So either you did not read it (yet), or you are simply not listening. So, I would like to offer the explanation again. But first I want to know if you are willing to listen and discuss the matter.

Blessings

 

[eOxy]

Indeed, and several claims are shown to be utterly false, like the claim that the filioque came along with St. Augustine. It was taught by St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, and St. Gregory of Nyssa all before the time of St. Augustine, and they all spoke of the eternal procession.

Contrary, the claim you laid down was shown to be utterly false.

If St. Athanasos the Great meant what you attribute to him, that would have to bear the meaning that Son begets Himself, too. Otherwise, he “wouldn’t have all what Father has”.

The same applies to St. Hilary, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, etc. Only St. Augustine pronounced the error, but he asked for correction. Filioquists raised his error to dogma instead.

Besides, as shown by the other filoquist on this thread, Mardukm, the meaning of filioque embraces both per fillium (which woudlnt’ be heretical per se, except as an unauthorized and unnecessary addendum), and eternal procession, as defined by your councils in Lyons and Achen.

I believe it is clear and apparent why your blessings disturb me - I don’t take the blessings of your Trinity. I believe in Holy Trinity where the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and don’t need the blessings of any other one.

 

[Ghosty]

Contrary, the claim you laid down was shown to be utterly false.

If St. Athanasos the Great meant what you attribute to him, that would have to bear the meaning that Son begets Himself, too. Otherwise, he “wouldn’t have all what Father has”.

I don’t even know where you get this from, honestly. The point isn’t that “from the Son” makes something co-substantial with the Father, but that the Son is “from the Father”, and therefore has the same nature as the Father, and since the Holy Spirit is “from the Son”, the Holy Spirit has the same nature as the Son, and therefore the same nature as the Father. St. Athanasios says that the relationship that the Son has to the Father, the Holy Spirit has to the Son; nothing about his statement would make the Son Begettor of Himself.

The same applies to St. Hilary, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, etc. Only St. Augustine pronounced the error, but he asked for correction. Filioquists raised his error to dogma instead.

You’re not willing to actually look at what the Father’s said, and that’s sad. They said the same thing as St. Augustine, and never admitted error, and neither did St. Augustine.

If St. Augustine asked for correction, show us where he asked, just as I’ve shown the quotes from St. Athanasius and St. Cyril that you denied.

Besides, as shown by the other filoquist on this thread, Mardukm, the meaning of filioque embraces **both **per fillium (which woudlnt’ be heretical per se, except as an unauthorized addendum), and eternal procession, as defined by your councils in Lyons and Achen.

“Per filium” refers to eternal procession, and it is precisely eternal procession that is taught by the Greek Fathers, not just the ones I’ve cited above, but the Cappadocian Fathers and others besides. None of them reserved the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son to time, and if you want to challenge this fact then come prepared.

As an aside: good luck trying to pit Mardukm and me against eachother. If he says one thing in a discussion, I’ll say something different only because I know he didn’t have enough time to write what I’ve written, and visa versa. We fill in eachother’s gaps, but we never contradict eachother. I’ve learned that over many years of posting on several forums.

I believe it is clear and apparent why your blessings disturb me - I don’t take the blessings of your Trinity. I believe in Holy Trinity where the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father alone and don’t need the blessings of any other one.

So you believe in many Trinities? I only believe that there is One Trinity, and if I’m wrong in my human understanding of The Trinity I still ask the One Trinity to bless you despite my lack of understanding of the nature of God, the shared Nature of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Maybe you think that you priest completely understands the Trinity, and when he asks for the blessing of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit he’s asking a different God. If that’s the case I hope that you can reconcile the fact that there are two Gods, two Trinities, in your thinking, and that there is only One in your priest’s, and in mine.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

“Per filium” refers to eternal procession, and it is precisely eternal procession that is taught by the Greek Fathers, not just the ones I’ve cited above, but the Cappadocian Fathers and others besides. None of them reserved the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son to time, and if you want to challenge this fact then come prepared.

This idea that the procession through the Son is a temporal event (which I’ve come across from several EO apologists - I wonder where they get it from?) is very novel. St. Gregory Palamas taught the procession through the Son occurs in Eternity.

Brother Ghosty, I don’t have time to research the quote from St. Palamas right now, though we had discussed this before in CAF many months back. Would you happen to have the reference off hand?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ghosty,

I found an even older reference to the belief that the Spirit proceeds through the Son eternally - The Synod of Blarchanae in the 13th century:
“the very Paraclete shines form and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’s rays.”

I realize that the Eastern Orthodox differentiates manifestation from origination (wrongly termed “procession” by the Orthodox). As an Oriental, this makes absolutely no sense to me. This highlights the distinction between the Eastern and Oriental understanding of the Essence and Energies (see here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5662414&postcount=19). To Eastern Orthodox, the Essence and Energies are an actual ontological distinction within the Godhead. This permits the belief that only the Energies are eternally manifested through the Son, while denying the eternal origination of the Spirit through the Son. But, as you have demonstrated, the early Fathers do teach that the whole Being of the Spirit is “through the Son.” To an Oriental, if one must use the term “manifestation,” then we would say that the whole Person of the Holy Spirit is manifested through the Son, but that we can only experience the Energy. To an Eastern, only the Energy is manifested through the Son.

I would like to present the following explanation from an Oriental perspective, and I would appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut from anyone here (especially Eastern or Oriental Orthodox and Catholics):

**1) ORIGINATION FROM (ekporeusan) is an eternally predicated of the Father alone.

1. ORIGINATION THROUGH or PROCESSION (procedere or proienan) is eternally predicated of the Son. Since all the Son has is from the Father, then it can properly be stated that this eternally predicated of both the Father and the Son.
2. MANIFESTATION is also an eternally predicated of the Son, where the Person of the Spirit manifests eternally through the Son (and where we experience the Energy temporally).

There is clear testimony from the Fathers for all three beliefs. It is very obvious, for example, from St. John Damascene who states:

1. “We do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son”
2. Describes the ontological relationship of the Father, Spirit and Son, in terms of spring, river and sea, as well as three torches being progressively lit from the first torch.
3. Asserts that the Holy Spirit is manifested through the Son.**

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Still, I hope you can provide that quote from St. Palamas, just to demonstrate the novelty of the modern EO argument that the manifestation of the Spirit occurs only temporally.

 

[mardukm]

I just read through the Synod of Blarchanae and Patriarch Photius’ Mystagogy of the Spirit. Neither of these two sources address #2 above in my previous post. They only address #1 and #3. In other words, these Magisterial Eastern sources only argue against the Son being the Source of the Holy Spirit (i.e., that the Holy Spirit originates FROM the Son), and affirm that the Holy Spirit is manifested through the Son. But no place (as far as I could notice) do they argue against the idea that the Holy Spirit originates THROUGH the Son.

These sources had two main objections to the Latin teaching:

1. They argue that the Latin teaching makes the Father and the Son TOGETHER originate the Holy Spirit. From this comes a whole slough of imaginary scenarios of the consequences of confusing the Divine properties (i.e., that the Holy Spirit can beget the Son, that the Son begets Himself, that the Son is the Origin of the Godhead, etc.).
2. They argue that there is no intermediary between the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Origination of the Holy Spirit. In this argument, they assume that the Latin teaching states that the Father Begets the Son who gives the Son the power to originate the Holy Spirit. In Patriarch Photius’ words, this makes the Father the “Grandfather of the Holy Spirit.” In Mark of Ephesus’ words: “they say together with the Latins that the Son proceeds from the Father immediately, and the Spirit from the Father mediately.” Perhaps one of my Eastern brethren can give more information, but IIRC, these are the same arguments that St. Gregory Palamas proposed.

The problem is, NEITHER OF THESE ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE LATIN TEACHING ON THE PROCESSION (NOTE: the teaching on the PROCESSION (procedere or proienan), not the teaching on the ORIGINATION ekporeusan]). The Latins do not teach that the Father and the Son together originate the Holy Spirit. Neither do the Latins teach that the Son is an intermediary in the sense that it is actually the Son who originates the Holy Spirit by the power of the Father.

The Latin teaching is that the Holy Spirit ORIGINATES FROM the Father ALONE, and PROCEEDS FROM (or originates through) the Son. There IS NO intermediary of origination in the Latin teaching, because the poperty of origination belongs to the Father alone (i.e., He does not give it to the Son so that the Son can originate the Holy Spirit).

The current Eastern rhetoric that the Son has absolutely no role in the origination of the Holy Spirit is utterly novel, and has heretofore no justification from their own magisterial sources.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

As long as you keep listening to EO apologetics that likewise fail to understand and make that distinction, then we can’t move forward in unity. Is that what you want?

A first step toward unity would be very simple on this issue. There would be no need for all the double talk and theological hoop jumping that you and Ghosty are always putting forth in your long dissertations. Here is the answer:

Ask the Latins to change the creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (such as it exists now with the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics). Or ask the Latins to change the creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That would be a great start!!!

 

[Ghosty]

Ask the Latins to change the creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (such as it exists now with the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics). Or ask the Latins to change the creed to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That would be a great start!!!

The text isn’t the issue, it’s the teaching itself. Do you think those Orthodox who view the teaching as heresy would consider the matter finished if the Latin Church merely removed the term, but kept teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son?

If that were the case, the only argument against the filioque we’d be seeing is that it was added improperly, but instead we have Eastern Orthodox making theological arguments about how the Holy Spirit can’t proceed eternally from the Son. If I never saw theological arguments against the filioque coming from Eastern Orthodox, I’d agree with you on this solution, but as it stands it’s clear that it’s the teaching and not the addition to the Creed that is the real stumbling block.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

The text isn’t the issue, it’s the teaching itself. Do you think those Orthodox who view the teaching as heresy would consider the matter finished if the Latin Church merely removed the term, but kept teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son?

Sorry bud. I have always seen the issue as being the teaching in conjunction with the text. If the Latins mean “from the Father through the Son”—then why is it written “from the Father and the Son”?

 

[jimmy]

The text isn’t the issue, it’s the teaching itself. Do you think those Orthodox who view the teaching as heresy would consider the matter finished if the Latin Church merely removed the term, but kept teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son?

If that were the case, the only argument against the filioque we’d be seeing is that it was added improperly, but instead we have Eastern Orthodox making theological arguments about how the Holy Spirit can’t proceed eternally from the Son. If I never saw theological arguments against the filioque coming from Eastern Orthodox, I’d agree with you on this solution, but as it stands it’s clear that it’s the teaching and not the addition to the Creed that is the real stumbling block.

Changing it to per filium would be a big move in that it would clarify the meaning. The fact that they continue to use a less precise term that the whole east rejected is disheartening to any discussion between east and west. It seems to indicates that they may have some problem either with per filium or with the idea of submiting on the issue.

The arguement of the Orthodox you are speaking of is not that it is not eternal but rather that it is not essential. They argue that it is an energetic procession from the Father through the Son but it still remains eternal since the energy of God is eternal.

Just for clarification: suppose the Oriental Orthodox were to adjust their creed to include that Christ is one physis, would that be acceptable? Rome has accepted the orthodoxy of the Christology of the Orientals, would it be acceptable for them to add the term ‘mia physis’ (a single nature) to the creed after it mentions that the Word was made flesh? Do you think that would cause problems in ecumenical discussions?

 

[Ghosty]

Sorry bud. I have always seen the issue as being the teaching in conjunction with the text. If the Latins mean “from the Father through the Son”—then why is it written “from the Father and the Son”?

That’s precisely my point: it’s not just the text that’s the issue. The question of heresy far outweighs the matter of the text of the Creed. This isn’t to say that the text issue isn’t also important nor that it doesn’t need to be addressed.

So long as the heresy issue is still unsettled, changing the text would be a bandaid on a festering wound.

Peace and God bless!