The Filioque in light of Revelation 22:1

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi, we’ve had some pretty good conversations since i’ve been on CAF. So, i wanted to ask you a question.

Why can’t the Holy Spirit come from the Father and the Son?

It helps to look at the common ground first, to see why we disagree. It is agreed in common that the Spirit is a divine person, who seems to have some form of dependence upon the Son, insofar that it is the Son who sends the Spirit economically. Furthermore, it is agreed in common between East and West that there can only be one principle in the Trinity (a concept known as the monarchy of the Father). This is why a so-called double procession, where the Son and the Father are separate principles of the Spirit, is rejected in both the East and the West. A double procession would effectively admit that there are two fonts of divinity, and two Gods, which is obviously inadmissible for both sides.

The solution for avoiding this problem of having two principles in the West has been to make the Father and the Son one principle. But this is problematic. In Eastern theology, those things which are hypostatic, have an hypostasis as an origin, while those things which are anhypostatic, have anhypostatic things as their origin. If the Father and the Son together make an anhypostatic principle of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit would be an energy of this anhypostatic principle, not an hypostasis. If the one principle is hypostatic, then the Spirit will be an hypostasis, but the Father and the Son will be one united hypostasis, and we have Sabellianism.

Even if we do away with the principle that an hypostasis must have an hypostasis as its origin, we still run into problems. Another basic proposition of Nicene Christianity is that any property of one person is either unique to that person (that is, the property is hypostatic), or it is shared by all three (that is, it is a property which belongs to the divine nature). A property which is shared by two (principle of the Spirit) is problematic, because it means that the Spirit’s nature is subordinate to the nature shared by the Son and the Father, because it does not possess this one property which the other two share.

That at least, would be a general introduction to the Eastern objections to the Filioque as it was taught at Florence.

 

[Vico]

In order to avoid subordinationism, the Latin Church used the basis of relationship rather than origin to differentiate the Persons.

Arians argues that a distinction must be classified under the category of substance or of accident. Augustine rejected both saying the basis was relationship and the Holy Spirit is the mutual love (communem qua invicem se diligunt pater et filius caritatem).

Also Augustine states: The Father is the author of the Spirit’s procession because He begot such a Son, and in begetting Him made Him also the source from which the Spirit proceeds.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

In order to avoid subordinationism, the Latin Church used the basis of relationship rather than origin to differentiate the Persons.

Arians argues that a distinction must be classified under the category of substance or of accident. Augustine rejected both saying the basis was relationship and the Holy Spirit is the mutual love (communem qua invicem se diligunt pater et filius caritatem).

Also Augustine states: The Father is the author of the Spirit’s procession because He begot such a Son, and in begetting Him made Him also the source from which the Spirit proceeds.

Augustine is not a huge authority in Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[Wisely]

who seems to have some form of dependence upon the Son, insofar that it is the Son who sends the Spirit economically.

Not necesarily. Even if the Father who sends the Holy Spirit through economically, it is the Father who sends the Son to the through the Holy Spirit.

It is balanced. But I may be wrong though.

 

[Bballer32]

It helps to look at the common ground first, to see why we disagree. It is agreed in common that the Spirit is a divine person, who seems to have some form of dependence upon the Son, insofar that it is the Son who sends the Spirit economically. Furthermore, it is agreed in common between East and West that there can only be one principle in the Trinity (a concept known as the monarchy of the Father). This is why a so-called double procession, where the Son and the Father are separate principles of the Spirit, is rejected in both the East and the West. A double procession would effectively admit that there are two fonts of divinity, and two Gods, which is obviously inadmissible for both sides.

The solution for avoiding this problem of having two principles in the West has been to make the Father and the Son one principle. But this is problematic. In Eastern theology, those things which are hypostatic, have an hypostasis as an origin, while those things which are anhypostatic, have anhypostatic things as their origin. If the Father and the Son together make an anhypostatic principle of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit would be an energy of this anhypostatic principle, not an hypostasis. If the one principle is hypostatic, then the Spirit will be an hypostasis, but the Father and the Son will be one united hypostasis, and we have Sabellianism.

Even if we do away with the principle that an hypostasis must have an hypostasis as its origin, we still run into problems. Another basic proposition of Nicene Christianity is that any property of one person is either unique to that person (that is, the property is hypostatic), or it is shared by all three (that is, it is a property which belongs to the divine nature). A property which is shared by two (principle of the Spirit) is problematic, because it means that the Spirit’s nature is subordinate to the nature shared by the Son and the Father, because it does not possess this one property which the other two share.

That at least, would be a general introduction to the Eastern objections to the Filioque as it was taught at Florence.

Well if the Father is only capable of producing the Spirit, then you really don’t have a Trinity. The word Trinity is made up of the Latin words trinus and unus. Trinus
meaning “3 each”, “3fold”, and “triple”. Unus meaning “one”.

Now, the most common symbol for any trinity is the triangle. So, if you put God the Father at one corner, God the Son in another, and God the Holy Spirit in the other, you create a triangle. This creates a problem with Orthodox theology. If the Spirit came only from the Father and not through the Son, then you actually create a V shape. This means that there would be no union between the Son and the Spirit causing no trinity. This basically takes out the unus of the trinity.

This picture may help.

 

[Bballer32]

Augustine is not a huge authority in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Actually, you would be surprised on how huge the Church Fathers are in Eastern Orthodoxy

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well if the Father is only capable of producing the Spirit, then you really don’t have a Trinity. The word Trinity is made up of the Latin words trinus and unus. Trinus
meaning “3 each”, “3fold”, and “triple”. Unus meaning “one”.

Now, the most common symbol for any trinity is the triangle. So, if you put God the Father at one corner, God the Son in another, and God the Holy Spirit in the other, you create a triangle. This creates a problem with Orthodox theology. If the Spirit came only from the Father and not through the Son, then you actually create a V shape. This means that there would be no union between the Son and the Spirit causing no trinity. This basically takes out the unus of the trinity.

This picture may help.

But see, according to the Cappodocian Fathers, like Gregory the Theologian, the unitive principle within the trinity is their common origin from the Father. Furthermore, perichoresis, or personal interpenetration, guarantees that there is no disunity between the Son and the Spirit. The Spirit does not need to be from the Son in order to have unity with the Son.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I say the same, that the verse refers to the Spirit’s manifestation through the Son, not the Spirit’s having existence, which is from the Father alone. You cannot cite this verse in support of the Filioque as defined at Florence because it does not show that the Holy Spirit has existence from the Son, but only that the Spirit is being manifested in into creation through the Son.

But you’re somewhat “trapped” here because the very term the Bible uses here is proceeds, in the same Greek form that appears in the Creed. It begs the question to say there are two different uses of proceeds.

It is agreed in common that the Spirit is a divine person, who seems to have some form of dependence upon the Son, insofar that it is the Son who sends the Spirit economically.

Correct, which supports the Filioque.

Furthermore, it is agreed in common between East and West that there can only be one principle in the Trinity (a concept known as the monarchy of the Father). This is why a so-called double procession, where the Son and the Father are separate principles of the Spirit, is rejected in both the East and the West. A double procession would effectively admit that there are two fonts of divinity, and two Gods, which is obviously inadmissible for both sides.

Agreed. This is Catholic dogma.

The solution for avoiding this problem of having two principles in the West has been to make the Father and the Son one principle.

I don’t think you’re representing the Catholic position accurately here. In fact, it contradicts what you just said above.

Picture a water Pump that sends Water to a Faucet, which then sends the Water into a sink. The Pump is a single cause/principle as well as sending the Water down a single path. The Faucet is not a cause of the water in the proper sense, nor is the Pump and Faucet a single cause (since they’re not synonymous).

This example also shows why the “Triangle” example often used is actually not a good example at all, for it gives the wrong impression that the Holy Spirit “results” from a Father + Son “addition” math problem, as if a swimming pool were being filled by two different hoses (even if those hoses were connected to the same water source).

This is how the Catholic view of the Filioque is really supposed to look:
Father---->Son---->Spirit
This “linear” view (as opposed to “triangular”) has the Father as single cause, as well as single path.

The EO idea that the Father can generate two Persons while the two other Persons cannot generate at all seems inconsistent, especially considering there is nothing logically inferior to saying the Father can generate two Persons, the Son can generate one, and the Holy Spirit none.

 

[Bballer32]

The Spirit does not need to be from the Son in order to have unity with the Son.

AND… if the Spirit has unity with the Son than He may also come from the Son and the Father.

Think… there is such great love between the Father and His Son that it creates a whole other person which creates the Trinity. Now, a Son loves His father as much as a Father loves His son. So, Christ is able to love the Father as much as the Father loves Christ, which allows the Spirit to come from the Father and the Son.

 

[Wisely]

AND… if the Spirit has unity with the Son than He may also come from the Son and the Father.

Think… there is such great love between the Father and His Son that it creates a whole other person which creates the Trinity. Now, a Son loves His father as much as a Father loves His son. So, Christ is able to love the Father as much as the Father loves Christ, which allows the Spirit to come from the Father and the Son.

Does the Son/Father loves the Spirit so much that it creates a whole other person? If not, I don’t think They love the Spirit as They should.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But you’re somewhat “trapped” here because the very term the Bible uses here is proceeds, in the same Greek form that appears in the Creed. It begs the question to say there are two different uses of proceeds.

Firstly, begging the question is when one uses a proposition to prove itself. This would not be a case of begging the question.

Secondly, proceeds is a generic Greek word which means to be sent out of something else. The term is used many times in the New Testament for things unrelated to the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Correct, which supports the Filioque.

Not any more than it supports the Eastern explanation that the Spirit manifests through the Son, but has its origin from the Father alone, preserving the unique causality of the Father.

I don’t think you’re representing the Catholic position accurately here. In fact, it contradicts what you just said above.

Picture a water Pump that sends Water to a Faucet, which then sends the Water into a sink. The Pump is a single cause/principle as well as sending the Water down a single path. The Faucet is not a cause of the water in the proper sense, nor is the Pump and Faucet a single cause (since they’re not synonymous).

This example also shows why the “Triangle” example often used is actually not a good example at all, for it gives the wrong impression that the Holy Spirit “results” from a Father + Son “addition” math problem, as if a swimming pool were being filled by two different hoses (even if those hoses were connected to the same water source).

This is how the Catholic view of the Filioque is really supposed to look:
Father---->Son---->Spirit
This “linear” view (as opposed to “triangular”) has the Father as single cause, as well as single path.

Then that is even worse, because your diagram makes the Son a second principle. The Spirit can only receive its personal existence from the Father, or else you have two Gods, not one.

The EO idea that the Father can generate two Persons while the two other Persons cannot generate at all seems inconsistent, especially considering there is nothing logically inferior to saying the Father can generate two Persons, the Son can generate one, and the Holy Spirit none.

It is the Roman Catholic idea that the Father and Son can be an exclusive non-personal unity without subordinating the Spirit or compromising the unity of the three which is inconsistent. This is why we say that the Son cannot cause the Spirit, because we are concerned with not subordinating the Spirit. I think you’re misunderstanding what the disagreement is about.

 

[Bballer32]

Does the Son/Father loves the Spirit so much that it creates a whole other person? If not, I don’t think They love the Spirit as They should.

See the Spirit is Love. The Spirit is Wisdom. The Spirit is Courage. The Spirit is Knowledge. The Spirit is Piety. The Spirit is Understanding.

In order to love one another, we have to love Love. Just as Christ and God have to love Love in order to Love the Person with full love.

(there’s a lot of loving going on here)

 

[Bballer32]

But see, according to the Cappodocian Fathers, like Gregory the Theologian, the unitive principle within the trinity is their common origin from the Father. Furthermore, perichoresis, or personal interpenetration, guarantees that there is no disunity between the Son and the Spirit. The Spirit does not need to be from the Son in order to have unity with the Son.

Hey Cavaradossi…

The beginning of the thread is about Revelations 22:1, right? Well, i finally looked it up in my bible to see the actual verse. In the side notes it tells me to see note at Rev. 7:17. So, i went to the verse and read it. Then, i looked to see if there was a side note for this one and there was. It said the definition of “life-giving water.” It literally means, “God’s grace, which flows from Christ.”

 

[Vico]

Augustine is not a huge authority in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Because they developed in different areas and with different philosophies and also Oriental Orthodoxy and Chaldean, although eastern also, are different. The modern clarification is present in this Catholic doctrinal statement from the Holy See:

Ad Gentes

CHAPTER I

PRINCIPLES OF DOCTRINE

1. The pilgrim Church is missionary by her very nature, since it is from the mission of the Son and the mission of the Holy Spirit that she draws her origin, in accordance with the decree of God the Father.(1. Cf. Dogmatic constitution, “Lumen Gentium,” 1.)

This decree, however, flows from the “fount - like love” or charity of God the Father who, being the “principle without principle” from whom the Son is begotten and Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, freely creating us on account of His surpassing and merciful kindness and graciously calling us moreover to share with Him His life and His cry, has generously poured out, and does not cease to pour out still, His divine goodness. Thus He who created all things may at last be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), bringing about at one and the same time His own glory and our happiness. But it pleased God to call men to share His life, not just singly, apart from any mutual bond, but rather to mold them into a people in which His sons, once scattered abroad might be gathered together (cf. John 11:52).

 

[Shiranui117]

Hey Cavaradossi…

The beginning of the thread is about Revelations 22:1, right? Well, i finally looked it up in my bible to see the actual verse. In the side notes it tells me to see note at Rev. 7:17. So, i went to the verse and read it. Then, i looked to see if there was a side note for this one and there was. It said the definition of “life-giving water.” It literally means, “God’s grace, which flows from Christ.”

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is simply God’s grace?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hey Cavaradossi…

The beginning of the thread is about Revelations 22:1, right? Well, i finally looked it up in my bible to see the actual verse. In the side notes it tells me to see note at Rev. 7:17. So, i went to the verse and read it. Then, i looked to see if there was a side note for this one and there was. It said the definition of “life-giving water.” It literally means, “God’s grace, which flows from Christ.”

Well, good trinitarian theology demands that we speak of Grace being worked by all three persons in unison, although the economy of language allows for us to speak of only one person performing an energy. As Gregory of Nyssa points out, we speak of God as one because the the persons are united in nature and in energy. If, then, we admit that the river of the water of life is grace (an energy of God), then it is not inconsistent with Eastern theology which admits that the Spirit is manifested through the Son. On the other hand, since the admission that Revelation 22:1 refers to grace is made, we also cannot use the verse as evidence that the hypostasis of the Spirit has its cause and existence from or through the Son (for the causing of the caused is prior to the activity of the three, the former being according to nature, the latter according to will), only that it is manifested through the Son.

 

[Bballer32]

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is simply God’s grace?

No, i’m actually implying that what comes from God can also come from Christ. If God’s grace can flow from Christ, then so can the Holy Spirit.

 

[Shiranui117]

No, i’m actually implying that what comes from God can also come from Christ. If God’s grace can flow from Christ, then so can the Holy Spirit.

The Divine Energies (or Grace, if you will) also come from the Holy Spirit. Grace can come from any member of the Trinity, and indeed, it comes from all of them. I still find it unsettling that you equate the causality of grace with the causality of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Holly3278]

Wow. That is certainly very interesting. I think it gives solid support for the orthodoxy of the filioque.

 

[Bballer32]

The Divine Energies (or Grace, if you will) also come from the Holy Spirit. Grace can come from any member of the Trinity, and indeed, it comes from all of them. I still find it unsettling that you equate the causality of grace with the causality of the Holy Spirit.

ya i might of worded that post the wrong way. I’m trying my best to understand and help people with the Filioque. I’m not too good at this topic so i was trying my best.

sorry about that…