The Filioque is accepted by the 3rd Ecumenical Council

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother Todd,

This is one of the points that Cavaradossi and I discussed in the past, and I don’t think he ever responded to the following point that I had made, namely:
When the the Synodikon of Orthodoxy states that the Holy Spirit “proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically,” is it not really teaching that the Holy Spirit ORIGINATES out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically? We have to be careful of our terminology because using the word Procession to translate both ekporeusai and procedit is a non-starter since ekporeusai and procedit are not perfectly equivalent - and I would grant that the Latins have a much better claim to the word Procession since it is directly derived from procedit; to avoid confusion, let us translate ekporeusai as ORIGINATES, instead of PROCEEDS (agreed?). Having said that, the Latins actually do not contradict the Synodikon at all because the Latin doctrine on filioque DOES NOT teach that the Son is the Origin/Source of either the Essence or the Hypostasis. The Latins definitely teach that it is the Father who is sole Origin/Source of both Son and Holy Spirit in both Essence and Hypostasis (as affirmed by Florence). The Latins simply teach that the Son is Cause in the sense that the Essence is THROUGH the Son, not Cause in the sense of being the Origin/Source of the Essence. So the Synodikon does not condemn the Latin filioque at all, because the Latin filioque does not teach that the Son is Source/Origin. The issue then becomes one of mere terminology (i.e., what do you mean by the term “cause?”), and we should follow St. Paul’s exhortation on that ponit (contained in my signature line below).

The Catholic Church would say that the Father is the sole Source of the Son by generation, while He is the sole Source of the Holy Spirit by procession, and with the Son is the Cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit receives His Essence from the Father through the Son. I guess the main sticking point is that the Latins understand that something can be a Cause of existence without being the Source (as one of the Cappadocians had affirmed - one is cause without cause, while another is cause from cause).

Blessings,
Marduk

I think you are confusing essence with existence. The two are not equivalent in the language used by the Cappadocians. Let’s examine the difference between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις in order to gain a grasp of the difference. When we speak of an ousia, it implies something that is general (for example, unicorn). The ousia of a unicorn, whatever it might be, tells us only what is being referenced (unicorn), but it tells us nothing about a specific unicorn, nor does it properly tell us about any sort of qualities that a unicorn might have.

Hypostasis carries the implication a specific thing instead of a general essence. One could say that an hypostasis is an unique existence of an ousia. In Trinitarian theology, hypostasis is especially attached to the phrase manner of existence (τρόπος ὑπάρξεως), which is known to be the only defining characteristic between the Trinitarian persons (only one is ingenerate, only one is begotten, and only one proceeds). Returning to the unicorn example, let us consider the question: how can we confess that unicorns do not exist, when we can give accounts of their nature and essence? It is because the essence, ‘unicorn’, has never come into concrete existence through an hypostasis.

Ousia without hypostasis is nothing but an abstraction. This is why I think neither Apotheoun nor I can accept the idea that the essence of the Spirit proceeds through the Son, but that the person of the Spirit does not. The generative act is not an act of combining some hypostatic characteristic (‘proceeds’) with the divine essence. That is to say that ‘proceeds’ + divine essence does not yield one Holy Spirit, it simply doesn’t work that way. This is because proceeds does not answer the question of what the Holy Spirit is, but it describes a manner of existing, answering the question of how the Holy Spirit is. The generative act involves causing another manner of existence of the divine essence (that is, a complete hypostasis) to come into existence. Because of this the Holy Spirit is divine not by virtue of any relationship with the Son, but only by virtue of its relationship to the Father. There simply is no room for the Son to participate in the act of generating the Spirit.

 

[Apotheoun]

This is one of the points that Cavaradossi and I discussed in the past, and I don’t think he ever responded to the following point that I had made, namely:
When the the Synodikon of Orthodoxy states that the Holy Spirit “proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically,” is it not really teaching that the Holy Spirit ORIGINATES out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically? We have to be careful of our terminology because using the word Procession to translate both ekporeusai and procedit is a non-starter since ekporeusai and procedit are not perfectly equivalent - and I would grant that the Latins have a much better claim to the word Procession since it is directly derived from procedit; to avoid confusion, let us translate ekporeusai as ORIGINATES, instead of PROCEEDS (agreed?). Having said that, the Latins actually do not contradict the Synodikon at all because the Latin doctrine on filioque DOES NOT teach that the Son is the Origin/Source of either the Essence or the Hypostasis. The Latins definitely teach that it is the Father who is sole Origin/Source of both Son and Holy Spirit in both Essence and Hypostasis (as affirmed by Florence). The Latins simply teach that the Son is Cause in the sense that the Essence is THROUGH the Son, not Cause in the sense of being the Origin/Source of the Essence. So the Synodikon does not condemn the Latin filioque at all, because the Latin filioque does not teach that the Son is Source/Origin. The issue then becomes one of mere terminology (i.e., what do you mean by the term “cause?”), and we should follow St. Paul’s exhortation on that ponit (contained in my signature line below).

I continue to use the English word “procession” for ἐκπορεύσθαι because that Greek term does not simply mean “origin,” but also movement out of a thing as its cause; while I use the English word “progression” to translate the Greek word προϊέναι because that word refers to movement, but without implying causation. I reject the idea that the Son is - together with the Father - the cause of hypostasis or the essence of the Holy Spirit. Causality within the Godhead is the exclusive property of the hypostasis of the Father, and any attempt to allow the Son to participate in this unique causality of the person of the Father smacks of Sabellianism…

The Catholic Church would say that the Father is the sole Source of the Son by generation, while He is the sole Source of the Holy Spirit by procession, and with the Son is the Cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit receives His Essence from the Father through the Son. I guess the main sticking point is that the Latins understand that something can be a Cause of existence without being the Source (as one of the Cappadocians had affirmed - one is cause without cause, while another is cause from cause).

I cannot agree to what you say here, because I reject entirely the notion that the Son is with the Father the cause of the existence (or essence) of the Holy Spirit. The Father alone is the cause within the Godhead, while the Son and Spirit are both caused, the former by generation (γέννησιν) and the latter by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν). Moreover, I do not accept the idea that there is a cause from a cause in the inner life of the Godhead, and it should be noted that when one looks at St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Ad Ablabius in the original Greek (and his other texts that touch on this issue, e.g., his Letter to Peter and his treatise Ad Graecos, see in particular section 25 of the latter work) he never refers to the Son as cause, but only speaks of Him as from the cause (i.e., from the Father); while the Spirit is from the Father, who is described in relation to the Spirit separately as “cause” (αιτιας) and as the “first” (πρωτου). So according to the Eastern Christian tradition there is no “caused cause” within the Godhead, and the promotion of that type of idea would be seen by the Eastern Fathers as a form of Ditheism or Sabellian Modalism depending upon the specifics of the case.

P.S. - The English translation of Ad Ablabius on the NewAdvent website does not accurately convey the original Greek text in the section that speaks about the Father as the cause of the Son and Spirit. Recourse to the original Greek text is necessary in order to understand clearly what St. Gregory of Nyssa is saying, and what he is not saying about the origin of the Son and the Spirit.

 

[Apotheoun]

The issue then becomes one of mere terminology (i.e., what do you mean by the term “cause?”), and we should follow St. Paul’s exhortation on that ponit (contained in my signature line below).

Sometimes disputes about the meanings of words is ncessary, an example of that can be seen in the Nicene Creed where we use the term homoousian as opposed to homoiousian. In fact, the use of the first term is Orthodox, while the use of the second term in place of homoousian is heretical.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sometimes disputes about the meanings of words is ncessary, an example of that can be seen in the Nicene Creed where we use the term homoousian as opposed to homoiousian. In fact, the use of the first term is Orthodox, while the use of the second term in place of homoousian is heretical.

To think that a jot could be so important… Similarly, the difference between saying Jesus is made known in two natures and Jesus exists in two natures could be the difference between heresy and orthodoxy. The latter is potentially heretical without further qualification while the former reflects Chalcedonian orthodoxy.

 

[Dollinger]

(as one of the Cappadocians had affirmed - one is cause without cause, while another is cause from cause).

It has been adressed elsewhere:

Below I will argue that there is a problem in Hart’s paper that is significant and misleading: his analysis of St. Gregory of Nyssa’s “On Not Three Gods” as supporting something like the filioque.

Hart interprets St. Gregory of Nyssa as a supporter of something akin to St. Augustine’s doctrine of the filioque. He employs this claim to suggest that whatever the filioque issue may be, it is not something that all the Eastern Fathers reject, and thus is not necessarily a Church-dividing dogmatic disagreement. The claim that St. Gregory of Nyssa is teaching the Father is the first cause in the Trinity and the Son is a second cause who contributes to the existence of the person of the Holy Spirit was suggested by a mistranslation of the Greek in Schaff and Wade’s Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers:

“For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.” (“On Not Three Gods”, 56, Schaff and Wade translation)

Notice how the language of “first cause” when applied to the Father implies that there is a second cause, namely the Son. Thus, on this translation, it sounds like St. Gregory is claiming that the Son’s role in the Spirit’s procession “by/through the Son” is causal—the Son contributes to causing the person of the Holy Spirit to exist. *But the Greek does not use the language of “first” conjoined to “cause” to describe the Father (Turcuscu, from The Concept of Divine Persons in Saint Gregory of Nyssa, from footnote 42 on pg. 68). It simply says “the cause” (from the translation Hart uses) or “the first” (Turcuscu’s translation). This mistranslation has led to use of the text of “On Not Three Gods” in Roman Catholic apologetics and in Eastern ecumenical texts trying to demonstrate an Eastern acceptance of the Filioque. *This problem was accentuated by other passages that appear to support the Filioque in St. Gregory’s writings, that are now considered by many scholars to be interpolations. The translation Hart is using is much more accurate, but reveals that he is misinterpreting Gregory. His translation says:

“we believe one to be the cause and another to be from the cause; and again we conceive of another difference within that which is from the cause: between the one who, on the one hand, comes directly from the principle and the one who, on the other, comes from the principle through the one who arises directly…” (“On Not Three Gods”, 56, the translation Hart is using)

Notice what is implied by the language of “the cause”: there is only one cause identified in the Trinity, namely the Father. And this is where the distinction between “from the Son” and “through the Son” comes in. According to the patristics scholar Lucian Turcuscu, St. Gregory of Nyssa’s language of “through the Son”

…must not be identified with the filioque, since the Father and the Son do not form one principle like in that Western doctrine; the proper cause of the Spirit is the Father.[44] Phrases found in Gregory’s writings which would allegedly imply that he favors the filioque have proven to be interpolations.[45] In stating that the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son, Gregory and his brother Basil actually manifest themselves as followers of Origen. It was Origen who interpreted John 1:3 (“All things came into being through him , and without him not one thing came into being”) as meaning that all things came into existence through the Word, including the Holy Spirit. (from The Concept of Divine Persons in Saint Gregory of Nyssa, pg.68)

Turcuscu’s claims might even be supplemented by the analysis of St. Gregory’s writings in Siecienski’s recent book The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. Siecienski rightly acknowledges that in St. Gregory there is teaching about an eternal relationship between Son and Spirit, where the Spirit proceeds from the Father “through the Son” (pg 44). But he is very careful to acknowledge that this is not a causal relationship. One might note, though Siecienski does not make this connection (or at least does not state it directly), that St. Gregory’s language does not explicitly state, but is quite compatible with, an eternal energetic procession. Notice how different this is from St. Augustine’s claim:

**“Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time.” **(On the Holy Trinity, 15)

or the claim of the Council of Florence that

The holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.

both of which acknowledge the role of the Son as sharing in common with the Father the procession of the person of the Holy Spirit (as from one principle). Thus, it is misleading for Hart to make the following claim about St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian theology:

This is the very argument—made by Augustine in De Trinitate—that scores of Orthodox theologians in recent decades have denounced as entirely alien to Eastern tradition.energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/harts-strategies-and-his-interpretation-of-st-gregory-of-nyssa-in-the-myth-of-schism/

 

[Nine_Two]

Whatever the case may be, watching others debate the filioque makes my head spin.

I don’t envy those pagans who were seeking the true faith between the second to seventh centuries: so many of the heretical sects back in the day were based on abstract notions of who Jesus and the Holy Spirit are. No ordinary person can be reasonably expected to grasp such matters to the point of being able to make any informed decisions about what self-proclaimed Christian group to join.

If the Latins hadn’t dogmatized the filioque, we could all be suffering a few less headaches…

Exactly, the filioque is at best worthless, at worst, well, I’m not going to go there.

 

[Hesychios]

Does anyone really think orthodox, especially protestant converts to the eastern orthodox faith, are ever going to agree with any catholic argument defending the filioque?

I think Cavarodossi answered your post pretty well.

However, I am rather disappointed in you for pulling the “protestant convert” card. It says that you believe that there is a blind beligerance at work here which defies reason, yet you have not made any serious contribution to the discussion yourself.

The fact is Orthodox have very specific objections to the filioque, and usually state them quite clearly. We all need to address the arguments directly and not impugn the motives of the active participants in a serious discussion.

 

[dcointin]

I think Cavarodossi answered your post pretty well.

However, I am rather disappointed in you for pulling the “protestant convert” card. It says that you believe that there is a blind beligerance at work here which defies reason, yet you have not made any serious contribution to the discussion yourself.

The fact is Orthodox have very specific objections to the filioque, and usually state them quite clearly. We all need to address the arguments directly and not impugn the motives of the active participants in a serious discussion.

I’m a Protestant convert to Eastern Orthodoxy and I’ve more or less come to believe that our understandings of the procession of the Holy Spirit are compatible.

 

[dcointin]

I continue to use the English word “procession” for ἐκπορεύσθαι because that Greek term does not simply mean “origin,” but also movement out of a thing as its cause; while I use the English word “progression” to translate the Greek word προϊέναι because that word refers to movement, but without implying causation. I reject the idea that the Son is - together with the Father - the cause of hypostasis or the essence of the Holy Spirit. Causality within the Godhead is the exclusive property of the hypostasis of the Father, and any attempt to allow the Son to participate in this unique causality of the person of the Father smacks of Sabellianism…

I cannot agree to what you say here, because I reject entirely the notion that the Son is with the Father the cause of the existence (or essence) of the Holy Spirit. The Father alone is the cause within the Godhead, while the Son and Spirit are both caused, the former by generation (γέννησιν) and the latter by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν). Moreover, I do not accept the idea that there is a cause from a cause in the inner life of the Godhead, and it should be noted that when one looks at St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Ad Ablabius in the original Greek (and his other texts that touch on this issue, e.g., his Letter to Peter and his treatise Ad Graecos, see in particular section 25 of the latter work) he never refers to the Son as cause, but only speaks of Him as from the cause (i.e., from the Father); while the Spirit is from the Father, who is described in relation to the Spirit separately as “cause” (αιτιας) and as the “first” (πρωτου). So according to the Eastern Christian tradition there is no “caused cause” within the Godhead, and the promotion of that type of idea would be seen by the Eastern Fathers as a form of Ditheism or Sabellian Modalism depending upon the specifics of the case.

P.S. - The English translation of Ad Ablabius on the NewAdvent website does not accurately convey the original Greek text in the section that speaks about the Father as the cause of the Son and Spirit. Recourse to the original Greek text is necessary in order to understand clearly what St. Gregory of Nyssa is saying, and what he is not saying about the origin of the Son and the Spirit.

Are you good with Greek? I took it in college but unfortunately have forgotten almost everything I learned lol.

 

[Mickey]

I’ve more or less come to believe that our understandings of the procession of the Holy Spirit are compatible.

I would think you are in the minority opinion amongst the Orthodox.

 

[dcointin]

I would think you are in the minority opinion amongst the Orthodox.

I know that I am. I definitely tend more toward the “ecumenicist” when it comes to Orthodox/Catholic dialogue.

 

[Ubenedictus]

The west and east agree on both the monarchy of the Father and on the mission of the Holy Spirit from the Son. It is internal processions that are the topic of disagreement.

The eastern theology is that the internal processions are not subject of intellectual understanding, it holds a apophatic (deny-speak) theology. The western theology is cataphatic (down-speak) so will make positive statements on internal processions. This is a fundamental difference in approach.

There are no biblical quotes for the filioque, it is dependent upon the council of Nicea’s use of the word homoousious or consubstantial (of one substance).

really there is no biblical quotes for the filioque? Are you just joking or are u serious?
Ubenedictus

 

[dcointin]

really there is no biblical quotes for the filioque? Are you just joking or are u serious?
Ubenedictus

I’m not sure I understand that statement either.

The most significant is the following:

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me". - John 15:26 (NASB)

 

[Ubenedictus]

Whatever the case may be, watching others debate the filioque makes my head spin.

I don’t envy those pagans who were seeking the true faith between the second to seventh centuries: so many of the heretical sects back in the day were based on abstract notions of who Jesus and the Holy Spirit are. No ordinary person can be reasonably expected to grasp such matters to the point of being able to make any informed decisions about what self-proclaimed Christian group to join.

If the Latins hadn’t dogmatized the filioque, we could all be suffering a few less headaches…

i thought the headaches started when the east decided it was a manifestation of heresy.
Ubenedictus

 

[Trebor135]

i thought the headaches started when the east decided it was a manifestation of heresy.
Ubenedictus

Well, maybe it was a heresy by the time that the brouhaha erupted, given that the meaning attributed to the filioque has reportedly changed over the centuries. Can a knowledgeable Catholic address this issue?

 

[dcointin]

Well, maybe it was a heresy by the time that the brouhaha erupted, given that the meaning attributed to the filioque has reportedly changed over the centuries. Can a knowledgeable Catholic address this issue?

Ghosty is your man for this. Are you still lurking here Ghosty?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m not sure I understand that statement either.

The most significant is the following:

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me". - John 15:26 (NASB)

The problem with that passage is that it only shows the economic sending of the Spirit by the Son. The Latin teaching does not limit the Filioque just to that.

 

[Nine_Two]

i thought the headaches started when the east decided it was a manifestation of heresy.
Ubenedictus

Nope, it started when the West tried to force it on the East.

It was used in the West for several hundred years with only minor grumblings.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think Cavarodossi answered your post pretty well.

However, I am rather disappointed in you for pulling the “protestant convert” card. It says that you believe that there is a blind beligerance at work here which defies reason, yet you have not made any serious contribution to the discussion yourself.

The fact is Orthodox have very specific objections to the filioque, and usually state them quite clearly. We all need to address the arguments directly and not impugn the motives of the active participants in a serious discussion.

There are many Catholic converts from Protestantism. I wonder if we are to denigrate any position they hold (no matter how Catholic), simply because they have come to that conclusion?

Are we free to say that Catholics are wrong on the issue of purgatory, because some former Protestants hold that position? The Immaculate Conception? Papal Infallibility? The Trinity, and the existence of God himself?

Just because a former Protestant has admitted they were wrong, does not mean they are wrong.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Nope, it started when the West tried to force it on the East.

It was used in the West for several hundred years with only minor grumblings.

I believe it was the in the eighth century Libri Carolini where the Greeks were first accused of “removing” the Filioque from the creed. This same ridiculous claim was repeated by Cardinal Humbert in his bull of excommunication meant for Michael Cerlarius. Certainly, the Franks added much fuel to the fire themselves.