The "filioque" and Arianism

[Peter_J]

The Arian heresy was not that Jesus was not divine but that he was less divine than the Father. In other words, it introduced degrees into the Godhead. Since the filioque was said to make Jesus more divine and thus fight the heresy of Arianism, it too introduces degrees into the Godhead, but in the opposite direction. Trying to make the Son more divine by having the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well as the Father is sort of a reverse-Arian heresy itself.

I admit that, the way some Catholics talk about it, it can sound like reverse-Arianism. So it’s important to turn to reliable sources. Here are two paragraphs from “The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?” (2003):

The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul.

Third, however, and of particular significance for later Western theology, was the so-called Athanasian Creed ( Quicunque ). Thought by Westerners to be composed by Athanasius of Alexandria, this Creed probably originated in Gaul about 500, and is cited by Caesarius of Arles (+542). This text was unknown in the East, but had great influence in the West until modern times. Relying heavily on Augustine’s treatment of the Trinity, it clearly affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. A central emphasis of this Creed was its strong anti-Arian Christology: speaking of the Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son implied that the Son was not inferior to the Father in substance, as the Arians held. The influence of this Creed undoubtedly supported the use of the Filioque in the Latin version of the Creed of Constantinople in Western Europe, at least from the sixth century onwards.

Even more to the point is the following paragraph from the 1995 Clarification:

The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit. Against Arianism, which was still virulent in the West, its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one Monarchy of the Father.

Clearly then, any Catholic who says, “The Holy Spirit must proceed from the Father and the Son, because if the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father and no one proceeded from the Son, that would make the Son inferior to the Father” is NOT presenting the Catholic argument. Rather, the Catholic way of using the filioque to argue against Arianism (and note that I’m not saying we can’t argue against Arianism without the filioque) is “… to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son”.

 

[JohnVIII]

So which then is divinely inspired. Is it the original Nicene Creed in which the council said that it was done “with the Holy Spirit”. Or is it the Nicene Creed with the addition of the filioque a which it took centuries and many popes in disagreement with the addition before it finally got entered into the creed? I know for a fact that at least eight popes said that this should never be added to the creed, were all these popes wrong and the more modern popes the only ones that were correct?

 

[Peter_J]

So which then is divinely inspired. Is it the original Nicene Creed in which the council said that it was done “with the Holy Spirit”.

Hi,

I’m not sure why I never responded to your post. " … but late is better than never."

I have absolutely no intention of denying that the First Council of Constantinople (381) was inspired. As the 2003 document says:

While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it.

 

[Hesychios]

I have a suspicion, a very strong suspicion, that most Roman Catholics actually believe in a double-Procession of the Holy Spirit. This in spite of formal rejection of that position, more than once, by the Papacy.

The language of the filioque is just too ambivalent, and some formal Latin church documents from the past seem even more certain of double-Procession, even insistent upon it. As well, in Orthodox thinking any such Procession as through the Son is temporal (by that I mean in time after creation, not as a fundamental principle of Divinity), not an eternal Procession. The relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son is cooperative, like two hands working together or even washing each other! The one hand does not spring forth from the other but is manifest in it’s cooperation.

It’s not surprising then, that the Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople avoided any such language. It is actually of a secondary importance and the terminology (especially in Latin) is confusing. It introduces problems, does not solve them.

The fact is the filioque does not deserve a place in the Creed of Christianity. It does have a place as a footnote in theological textbooks where it can be properly glossed.

 

[Hesychios]

While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it.

Does anyone have access to the decrees of this Council at Aachen?

My usual sources are coming up dry, and that seems unusual. There should be very good records somewhere.

In particular, I am interested in whether these bishops addressed the findings of the Synod of Frankfort, not too many years before.

Thanks

 

[Peter_J]

I have a suspicion, a very strong suspicion, that most Roman Catholics actually believe in a double-Procession of the Holy Spirit. This in spite of formal rejection of that position, more than once, by the Papacy.

The language of the filioque is just too ambivalent, and some formal Latin church documents from the past seem even more certain of double-Procession, even insistent upon it.

I can’t really speak to that, per se, but I do at least think that the typical Catholic has a bit of an allergy to the original (old-fashioned, if you will) Creed of 381 A.D.

I’ve heard an interesting story about the CDF’s document, Dominus Iesus (2000). Apparently, the editor of the document discovered a “mistake” that then-Cardinal Ratzinger had made. He sent the manuscript back to the good Cardinal with the words “who proceeds from the Father” changed to “who proceeds from the Father and the Son”.

 

[mardukm]

I have a suspicion, a very strong suspicion, that most Roman Catholics actually believe in a double-Procession of the Holy Spirit. This in spite of formal rejection of that position, more than once, by the Papacy.

I would agree, brother. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 is the only source I could find for this term “double procession.” It is not contained in any magisterial documents of the Catholic Church, and was even explicitly denied by the Councils of Lyons and Florence. But I guess popular sources of information such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, being more accessible than magisterial documents, would have a greater influence on the laity.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is great on many issues and topics, but on this matter, it has done a great disservice to the Catholic Church.

The language of the filioque is just too ambivalent, and … It is actually of a secondary importance and the terminology (especially in Latin) is confusing. It introduces problems, does not solve them.

To the early Latins, I don’t think it was confusing or ambivalent. I think part of the ambivalence now is the ambivalence created by opposition to it.

some formal Latin church documents from the past seem even more certain of double-Procession, even insistent upon it.

I highly doubt that. Lyons and Florence both insisted that there are not two Sources of the Holy Spirit. I haven’t found any Catholic Church magisterial documents that promotes the language of “double procession” or “Procession from two Sources.”

As well, in Orthodox thinking any such Procession as through the Son is temporal (by that I mean in time after creation, not as a fundamental principle of Divinity), not an eternal Procession.

I definitely disagree with you there. The relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son does not change. The EO cannot claim that the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son in temporality is different from their relationship in eternity without bordering on heterodoxy. Your assertions places an unacceptable feature of changeablility in the Godhead.

It’s not surprising then, that the Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople avoided any such language.

The Fathers did not avoid the language. The Creed was a product of matters that were of concern to the Council. The Creed does NOT, as Pope St. Cyril correctly stated, represent the entirety of the Church’s Tradition.

The fact is the filioque does not deserve a place in the Creed of Christianity. It does have a place as a footnote in theological textbooks where it can be properly glossed.

The fact is the filioque deserves a place in the Creed of the Latin Church. It is completely orthodox according to the Latin and intentions of the Latin Fathers. I agree with you, however, that the filioque clause cannot be universally imposed on the Creed of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Harpazo]

I have a suspicion, a very strong suspicion, that most Roman Catholics actually believe in a double-Procession of the Holy Spirit. This in spite of formal rejection of that position, more than once, by the Papacy.

The language of the filioque is just too ambivalent, and some formal Latin church documents from the past seem even more certain of double-Procession, even insistent upon it. As well, in Orthodox thinking any such Procession as through the Son is temporal (by that I mean in time after creation, not as a fundamental principle of Divinity), not an eternal Procession. The relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son is cooperative, like two hands working together or even washing each other! The one hand does not spring forth from the other but is manifest in it’s cooperation.

It’s not surprising then, that the Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople avoided any such language. It is actually of a secondary importance and the terminology (especially in Latin) is confusing. It introduces problems, does not solve them.

The fact is the filioque does not deserve a place in the Creed of Christianity. It does have a place as a footnote in theological textbooks where it can be properly glossed.

Glory to Jesus Christ! (my apologies as I don’t know if there is a Lenten greeting)

I have to agree with you. At least in the Latin Diocese of Venice, at my school, Ave Maria University we were taught in a Sacred Doctrine class that there was a double procession. I tried to insist that there was but one procession of the Father through the Son in class and on a test, and I was marked wrong! So, I’m not too convinced that Latins believe in a single procession of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[mardukm]

I have to agree with you. At least in the Latin Diocese of Venice, at my school, Ave Maria University we were taught in a Sacred Doctrine class that there was a double procession. I tried to insist that there was but one procession of the Father through the Son in class and on a test, and I was marked wrong! So, I’m not too convinced that Latins believe in a single procession of the Holy Spirit.

If I was in your class, I would have made a stink!

Blessings with sympathy,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Glory to Jesus Christ! (my apologies as I don’t know if there is a Lenten greeting)

I have to agree with you. At least in the Latin Diocese of Venice, at my school, Ave Maria University we were taught in a Sacred Doctrine class that there was a double procession. I tried to insist that there was but one procession of the Father through the Son in class and on a test, and I was marked wrong!

That last part at least (that you were marked down for not embracing the phrase “double procession”) is definitely very surprising.

 

[Hesychios]

That last part at least (that you were marked down for not embracing the phrase “double procession”) is definitely very surprising.

I am somewhat surprised as well, only because that is supposed to be a reputable school for advanced study.

I would not have been so surprised if he were taught it in RCIA, or Catechism classes at the local parish.

I have also noticed that the more “traditionalist” a Latin is, the more likely they will insist upon the double-Procession. Being something of a Latin Traditionalist myself long ago I got to experience this from both sides.

When I was an Eastern Catholic, and a greeter, I ran into this double-Procession argument quite frequently from visitors (often prompted by them observing we had scratched the filioque out of our old Missals). The discussions occasionally ended up with the visitor insisting on ‘interrogating’ my pastor. Sorry, that’s the only way I can describe it. It seemed like every Sunday after Liturgy my pastor was at risk for being summoned to trial by a new ad hoc committee.

 

[Peter_J]

I am somewhat surprised as well, only because that is supposed to be a reputable school for advanced study.

Well put.

I would not have been so surprised if he were taught it in RCIA, or Catechism classes at the local parish.

I have also noticed that the more “traditionalist” a Latin is, the more likely they will insist upon the double-Procession.

That wouldn’t surprise me, if only because I don’t think I’ve ever met a Traditionalist Catholic who wasn’t a fan of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.

Being something of a Latin Traditionalist myself long ago I got to experience this from both sides.

When I was an Eastern Catholic, and a greeter, I ran into this double-Procession argument quite frequently from visitors (often prompted by them observing we had scratched the filioque out of our old Missals). The discussions occasionally ended up with the visitor insisting on ‘interrogating’ my pastor. Sorry, that’s the only way I can describe it. It seemed like every Sunday after Liturgy my pastor was at risk for being summoned to trial by a new ad hoc committee.

No comment. (I would put in something about Joseph Ratzinger’s “mistake” in Dominus Iesus, except that I already used that in an earlier post. )

 

[johnnykins]

I have a suspicion, a very strong suspicion, that most Roman Catholics actually believe in a double-Procession of the Holy Spirit. This in spite of formal rejection of that position, more than once, by the Papacy.

The language of the filioque is just too ambivalent, and some formal Latin church documents from the past seem even more certain of double-Procession, even insistent upon it. As well, in Orthodox thinking any such Procession as through the Son is temporal (by that I mean in time after creation, not as a fundamental principle of Divinity), not an eternal Procession. The relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son is cooperative, like two hands working together or even washing each other! The one hand does not spring forth from the other but is manifest in it’s cooperation.

It’s not surprising then, that the Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople avoided any such language. It is actually of a secondary importance and the terminology (especially in Latin) is confusing. It introduces problems, does not solve them.

The fact is the filioque does not deserve a place in the Creed of Christianity. It does have a place as a footnote in theological textbooks where it can be properly glossed.

Nonsense. I suggest everyone look at the thread 'Dropping the Filioque" in eastern catholcism to get good understanding of things as well as HES’s views on matters

 

[Hesychios]

Nonsense. I suggest everyone look at the thread 'Dropping the Filioque" in eastern catholcism to get good understanding of things as well as HES’s views on matters

Yes, I agree. Go take a look.

 

[JohnVIII]

I’ve read more threads about the filioque on this forum than any other topic. In doing so I’ve learned that there are two views about the filioque, one which is orthodox and another which is heterodox. The orthodox view is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son; and heterodox view is that the Holy Spirit double-proceeds from the Father and the Son, both as original sources for the Holy Spirit. Now with regard to the issue of the filioque versus Arianism, I can see how the heterodox view of the Holy Spirit double-proceeding from both the Father and the Son might be persuasive to an Arian, but the orthodox view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son does not help persuade an Arian to believe in the divinity of Christ! If the Son channels the Holy Spirit from the Father that does not prove that the Son is divine! :nope:

 

[Hesychios]

I’ve read more threads about the filioque on this forum than any other topic. In doing so I’ve learned that there are two views about the filioque, one which is orthodox and another which is heterodox. The orthodox view is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son; and heterodox view is that the Holy Spirit double-proceeds from the Father and the Son, both as original sources for the Holy Spirit. Now with regard to the issue of the filioque versus Arianism, I can see how the heterodox view of the Holy Spirit double-proceeding from both the Father and the Son might be persuasive to an Arian, but the orthodox view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son does not help persuade an Arian to believe in the divinity of Christ! If the Son channels the Holy Spirit from the Father that does not prove that the Son is divine! :nope:

Yes, I see the same. The ‘Orthodox’ possible understanding for a filioque is not sufficient enough an argument to undermine Arius’s teaching about Christ as being merely an exalted human intermediary with God. Showing Jesus Christ as a source of origin of the Holy Spirit will nail that. It is with that understanding that I believe a lot of Roman Catholics will accept the argument that it was a necessary interpolation to combat Arianism.

So we may possibly have the ironic case of promoting one heresy to combat another

In the east it was not necessary to introduce this device, and yet Arianism declined.