The Filioque is accepted by the 3rd Ecumenical Council

[Apotheoun]

Now let’s look at that verse: [bibledrb]Revelation 22:1[/bibledrb]

When we see the river of the water of life proceeding from the throne of God and the Lamb, is this river of the water of life the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit? Surely, the term is in some way representative of the Holy Spirit, because it is by the Holy Spirit that all graces come into the world, but is the river of the water of life the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit? When we participate in the energy of life, does it come through some sort of hypostatic union with the Spirit? If we reject this (as we rightfully should), then there is no reason for us to assume that the river of the water of life must be the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit itself, but that it refers literally to the energy of life, which is given to us as grace by the Spirit. This passage then, does not refer to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, but to the manifestation of the Spirit from the Father through the Son.

St. Jerome, who can hardly be accused of an Eastern bias in connection with the issues under discussion, holds that the text from Revelation 22:1 concerns the graces of the Spirit, and he even speaks of them as not coming forth from the throne of God until the eschaton as the fruit of the Tree that stands on either side of the River. That said, it is clear that for St. Jerome, Revelation 22:1 does not concern the hypostatic origin of the Spirit, but rather speaks of the graces of the Spirit and the participation of the blessed in those graces in the age to come (see St. Jerome’s Homily on Psalm 1, paragraphs 11-14). To put it another way, he sees the text of Revelation 22:1 as economical in nature.

 

[Dollinger]

St. Jerome, who can hardly be accused of an Eastern bias in connection with the issues under discussion, holds that the text from Revelation 22:1 concerns the graces of the Spirit, and he even speaks of them as not coming forth from the throne of God until the eschaton as the fruit of the Tree that stands on either side of the River. That said, it is clear that for St. Jerome, Revelation 22:1 does not concern the hypostatic origin of the Spirit, but rather speaks of the graces of the Spirit and the participation of the blessed in those graces in the age to come (see St. Jerome’s Homily on Psalm 1, paragraphs 11-14). To put it another way, he sees the text of Revelation 22:1 as economical in nature.

Is this homily of st Jerome available online?

Thanks Cavaradossi for explaining this to me, i’m quite unfamiliar with our teaching on essence and energies.

 

[Apotheoun]

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

My own Greek is rusty too as happens with age and lack of use, but I will say this: Nowhere does St. Gregory in Ad Ablabius (or in his Letter to Peter, or in Ad Graecos, or in his treatise Contra Eunomium) call the Father “first cause” or the Son “second cause,” nor does he speak (in any of the texts I referenced) of the Son as a “caused cause” within the Godhead. In fact, quite to the contrary, he goes out of his way in Ad Graecos to say that there is only one cause in the Godhead, and he identifies that one cause with the Father alone.

 

[Apotheoun]

Is this homily of st Jerome available online?

No, not that I am aware of, but small excerpts from it can be read on Google books by looking up the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture volume that covers the Book of Revelation. The homily - in its entireity - is available in English in volume 48 of the CUA Press patristic series entitled The Fathers of the Church, but sadly that volume is only on Google books in snippet form.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Yes, a mirror in the supernatural of the natural. The Church has based the filioque on the council of Nicea “consubstantial” however. Note that it was in 447 A.D. that the dogma was declared by Pope Leo I.

what do u say about that arguement?
Ubenedictus

 

[dcointin]

really??? How was the east forced to accept the filioque?
Ubenedictus

1. That man too would betray his ignorance of ecclesiastical history who did not know that the union with the Orientals confirmed** that they would accept the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and add to the Creed the word Filioque (“and from the Son”); **that they would admit that both leavened and unleavened bread was matter for the Sacrament of the Eucharist; that they would accept the dogma of purgatory, of the beatific vision and of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff; in a word, that every care was taken to overthrow all errors opposed to the Catholic faith. But there was never any question of causing harm to the venerable Oriental rite. That man would be utterly ignorant also of the present discipline of the Church who had not discovered that the Roman Pontiffs, undeterred by past fruitless attempts, have always intended to restore the Greeks to union and have always followed and still follow the path We have explained just above. This can be clearly gathered both from their words and from their deeds."

ON THE OBSERVANCE OF ORIENTAL RITES
Allatae Sunt
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.

papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

Let clarify this, no one was forced to do anything. The word “accept” doesn’t indicate “force”. Men did what they believed was in their best interest through Free-Will for their Soul. And if this was not the case than they acted against their Free-Will and Conscious.

 

[dcointin]

Let clarify this, no one was forced to do anything. The word “accept” doesn’t indicate “force”. Men did what they believed was in their best interest through Free-Will for their Soul. And if this was not the case than they acted against their Free-Will and Conscious.

In the selection I quoted Pope Benedict XIV is clearly listing what was required of the eastern churches when they entered into communion with Rome. This included "and add to the Creed the word “Filioque”. He goes on after that to list other things that were required such as accepting the dogma of purgatory, etc.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In the selection I quoted Pope Benedict XIV is clearly listing what was required of the eastern churches when they entered into communion with Rome. This included "and add to the Creed the word “Filioque”. He goes on after that to list other things that were required such as accepting the dogma of purgatory, etc.

But what was actually agreed at the time of union? For example, what (if anything) did the Union of Brest or Union of Uzhhorod specify concerning the Filioque? As I recall (its been a while since I studied this, as it is currently a moot point in the Catholic Communion), it was agreed that the theology would be taught, but the Filioque would not be inserted.

Is it then suggested here that this Encyclical represents a rescinding or revocation of that aspect of those agreements?

 

[dcointin]

But what was actually agreed at the time of union? For example, what (if anything) did the Union of Brest or Union of Uzhhorod specify concerning the Filioque? As I recall (its been a while since I studied this, as it is currently a moot point in the Catholic Communion), it was agreed that the theology would be taught, but the Filioque would not be inserted.

Is it then suggested here that this Encyclical represents a rescinding or revocation of that aspect of those agreements?

I read this selection further on in the same encyclical:

"On the assumption that the first two answers are accepted, the third and final question is whether Orientals and Greeks can be allowed to say the Creed in the way they used to before the Schism, that is to say, without the phrase “and from the Son.” On this final point, the practice of the Apostolic See has varied. Sometimes it allowed the Orientals and Greeks to say the Creed without this addition. This allowance was made when it was certain that they accepted the first two points, and it realized that insistence on the addition would block the way to union. At other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition. It has done this when it had grounds to suspect that they were unwilling to include the addition in the Creed because they shared the false view that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son or that the Church had no power to add the phrase “and from the Son.”

He then goes on to give historical examples of both practices.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I read this selection further on in the same encyclical:

TY, friend! I’ll have to give this one a read at some point.

 

[Ubenedictus]

St. Jerome, who can hardly be accused of an Eastern bias in connection with the issues under discussion, holds that the text from Revelation 22:1 concerns the graces of the Spirit, and he even speaks of them as not coming forth from the throne of God until the eschaton as the fruit of the Tree that stands on either side of the River. That said, it is clear that for St. Jerome, Revelation 22:1 does not concern the hypostatic origin of the Spirit, but rather speaks of the graces of the Spirit and the participation of the blessed in those graces in the age to come (see St. Jerome’s Homily on Psalm 1, paragraphs 11-14). To put it another way, he sees the text of Revelation 22:1 as economical in nature.

something i have learnt from reading the fathers is that they interprete scripture in many sense, truly Jerome may have interpreted the water as the gift of the spirit but unless he clearly rebuked other interpretations the above hardly supports your arguement nor does it show that the previous arguement is wrong.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

1. That man too would betray his ignorance of ecclesiastical history who did not know that the union with the Orientals confirmed** that they would accept the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and add to the Creed the word Filioque (“and from the Son”); **that they would admit that both leavened and unleavened bread was matter for the Sacrament of the Eucharist; that they would accept the dogma of purgatory, of the beatific vision and of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff; in a word, that every care was taken to overthrow all errors opposed to the Catholic faith. But there was never any question of causing harm to the venerable Oriental rite. That man would be utterly ignorant also of the present discipline of the Church who had not discovered that the Roman Pontiffs, undeterred by past fruitless attempts, have always intended to restore the Greeks to union and have always followed and still follow the path We have explained just above. This can be clearly gathered both from their words and from their deeds."

ON THE OBSERVANCE OF ORIENTAL RITES
Allatae Sunt
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.

papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

aha! What have you brought? You claim that the headaches started when the west ‘forced’ the east yet you bring documents from 1755. This document was written after the divide, no?
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

In the selection I quoted Pope Benedict XIV is clearly listing what was required of the eastern churches when they entered into communion with Rome. This included "and add to the Creed the word “Filioque”. He goes on after that to list other things that were required such as accepting the dogma of purgatory, etc.

this is after the divide right? And you claim the headaches started when the west ‘forced’ the east. Actually you are providing documents of after the headaches, no?
Ubenedictus

 

[Jacob50]

Just read all the posts on this topic. Its a nice read. I didn’t know about Revelation 22:1. One never stops learning from Scripture.

 

[Cavaradossi]

something i have learnt from reading the fathers is that they interprete scripture in many sense, truly Jerome may have interpreted the water as the gift of the spirit but unless he clearly rebuked other interpretations the above hardly supports your arguement nor does it show that the previous arguement is wrong.
Ubenedictus

Perhaps it would help to look at the context in which Apotheoun posted that.

Here is the problem. When Jesus breathed upon the apostles in John 20:22 and said to them, “receive ye the Holy Ghost,” what was it that the apostles received? Did they receive the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit? Clearly not, as that would be absurd. Did they receive the divine nature? That too would be absurd. Clearly then, what they received were the energies of the Holy Spirit, which were worked in them by the Holy Spirit. Similarly, when the tongues of flame descended upon the apostles at Pentecost, were these tongues of flame the very hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, come to be partaken of by the apostles? That would also be absurd, as it would turn the Holy Spirit into some sort of pantheistic monster. Surely then, the tongues of flame were a manifestation of the divine energies manifested by the Holy Spirit through the Son and from the Father and worked in the Apostles to grant them the gifts of the Spirit.

Now let’s look at that verse: [bibledrb]Revelation 22:1[/bibledrb]

When we see the river of the water of life proceeding from the throne of God and the Lamb, is this river of the water of life the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit? Surely, the term is in some way representative of the Holy Spirit, because it is by the Holy Spirit that all graces come into the world, but is the river of the water of life the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit? When we participate in the energy of life, does it come through some sort of hypostatic union with the Spirit? If we reject this (as we rightfully should), then there is no reason for us to assume that the river of the water of life must be the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit itself, but that it refers literally to the energy of life, which is given to us as grace by the Spirit. This passage then, does not refer to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, but to the manifestation of the Spirit from the Father through the Son.

St. Jerome, who can hardly be accused of an Eastern bias in connection with the issues under discussion, holds that the text from Revelation 22:1 concerns the graces of the Spirit, and he even speaks of them as not coming forth from the throne of God until the eschaton as the fruit of the Tree that stands on either side of the River. That said, it is clear that for St. Jerome, Revelation 22:1 does not concern the hypostatic origin of the Spirit, but rather speaks of the graces of the Spirit and the participation of the blessed in those graces in the age to come (see St. Jerome’s Homily on Psalm 1, paragraphs 11-14). To put it another way, he sees the text of Revelation 22:1 as economical in nature.

The quotation from Jerome supplements the argument being made that the river of the water of life must be referring to an energy, not to the hypostasis of the Spirit or the very divine nature of God. There is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is associated with this river, being the giver of life, but that does not mean, therefore, that the river of the water of life is the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.

 

[dcointin]

aha! What have you brought? You claim that the headaches started when the west ‘forced’ the east yet you bring documents from 1755. This document was written after the divide, no?
Ubenedictus

My apologies, I may have been unclear about why I was citing this encyclical. It is an example of the Catholic Church requiring the Eastern Catholic Churches to recite the Filioque, not an attempt to impose it on the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Hesychios]

My apologies, I may have been unclear about why I was citing this encyclical. It is an example of the Catholic Church requiring the Eastern Catholic Churches to recite the Filioque, not an attempt to impose it on the Eastern Orthodox.

What difference would it make?

Before the schism the Latin church was (supposedly) western Orthodox and the eastern churches were likewise eastern Catholic.

Now we have an encyclical in a Pope’s words describing how the imposition was done to people who were only ‘eastern Catholic’ because the law and occupying armies required them to be.

Crete, mentioned in the encyclical reverted entirely to Orthodoxy after the crusaders lost control, but while the western powers held the island (and much more besides) all of the inhabitants were technically eastern Catholics by law, against their will, and the Pope was comfortable with a decision to send an inquisitor with power to enforce it upon them. In fact these were Orthodox people.

Even the notorious bull released by Cardinals Humbert and Frederic included the fact that the Greeks did not accept the western filioque as one reason for excommunication. Of course the implication was that if they would accept the interpolation (among other things), the condemnations could be lifted.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Perhaps it would help to look at the context in which Apotheoun posted that.
The quotation from Jerome supplements the argument being made that the river of the water of life must be referring to an energy, not to the hypostasis of the Spirit or the very divine nature of God. There is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is associated with this river, being the giver of life, but that does not mean, therefore, that the river of the water of life is the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.

i was actually reading in context. His wrote a good piece, but i simply commented on the jerome quote.
Ubenedictus

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’ve really enjoyed your analyses, Cavaradossi, and have been learning a lot from this thread.

When we receive life from God, do we receive the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit and the essence of God, or is it the energy of life which is worked in us from the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit?

The energy. I’m with you so far.

Indeed, because good Trinitarian theology demands that all three Trinitarian persons work an act, that the river of life is not functioning here as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit, but refers to the very energy of life which belongs equally from all three Trinitarian persons (though in a different manner), and is manifest into existence through the Son in the Holy Spirit, and is given to us as a form of grace.

I realize this might be an unfair question, or too vague a question, so please forgive me as this particular theological matter confuses me a lot, but… isn’t what you just said - particularly the bolded part - what the filioque means/claims?

…no operation of the Trinity belongs only to two persons without including the third.

As above - and forgive me, I really am a total noob and amateur on this matter, which is why I’m only asking honest questions, not attempting to argue - but isn’t that what the filioque itself means/claims?

I fully confess that I did not really understand the responses to Marduk’s explanation earlier in the thread. So therein probably lies my problem.

Even so, I have another question…

This one concerns Palamism/hesychasm.

Here is the problem. When Jesus breathed upon the apostles in John 20:22 and said to them, “receive ye the Holy Ghost,” what was it that the apostles received? Did they receive the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit? Clearly not, as that would be absurd.

Agreed. The very sentence doesn’t even make sense.

I agree with the rest of your replies, but I am very confused about these two quotes of yours:

Did they receive the divine nature? That too would be absurd. Clearly then, what they received were the energies of the Holy Spirit, which were worked in them by the Holy Spirit.

…the river of the water of life must be referring to an energy, not to the hypostasis of the Spirit or the very divine nature of God.

Aren’t “the energies of the Holy Spirit” themselves part of “the very divine nature of God,” though of course they are not His essence, which is utterly impenetrable?

If not, in what way do we “partake of the divine nature” as Scripture says, if the energies we can partake of are not themselves God’s divine nature?