The Filoque: Why is it important?

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by tgdesq:

I don’t really have an answer for what you are calling a common attitude amongst ECs. I am assured over and over again by the Orthodox here that this is their view, but have only had one or two ECs express any problem with the filioque. Even then it’s gone along the lines that it isn’t part of their tradition, not that they believe it’s heretical. That’s all I can tell you.

Ok, that’s your experience. I’ve met with several Eastern Catholics who embrace Latin approaches and formulations of the Christian faith, but I’ve also met numerous Eastern Catholics who challenge the Latin approaches and formulations and are determined to effect the removal of these so-called “Latinizations” from the Eastern Catholic Churches.

For about two years and until several months ago, I’ve attended a Ruthenian parish and have had many opportunities (due to my location and studies) to interact with Eastern Catholics. I acknowledge that there are many Eastern Catholics who do not have problems with the filioque. The parish I went to included the filioque in the Creed and very few people seemed to care. The elderly parishioners had been brought up with the Latinizations. It was natural to them. The filioque will hopefully be removed soon, per the recent liturgical directives of the Ruthenian ordinary.

I know several Eastern Catholics who adamantly defend their particular Byzantine understanding while affirming the Pope as infallible and the center of unity in the Church. The Vatican has acknowledged that the Byzantines and other Eastern Catholic Christians do not simply have different rites but also distinct theological traditions of their own. The Vatican charges them with the task of preserving their venerable rights and spiritual traditions. Orientalium Ecclesiarum especially drove this point, and I know John Paul II, in his lifetime and in his encyclicals, likewise affirmed this.

 

[Madaglan]

Btw, tgdesq:

Are you a lawyer? I notice that your CAF name ends with an esq (esquire). You’re not Karl Keating using a pseudonym, are you?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, that seems a little bit arbitrary on your part. They both deal with the Holy Spirit.

I agree with this.

I think I agree with this if I’m understanding you correctly. The later addition of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father does not change the meaning of the previous declaration that we are to believe in the Holy Spirit. But neither does procession from the Son change the meaning of procession from the Father, unless you presuppose that the council meant that the Spirit proceeds solely from the Father. But the council doesn’t state that…

ekporeuomai, the term used by the Fathers, does.

 

[tdgesq]

ekporeuomai, the term used by the Fathers, does.

For all of our sakes, I hope it doesn’t mean that! Otherwise there could be no procession of any kind from Christ, neither in the eternal relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity nor in the external giving of the Spirit to the world. Something obviously opposed to Scripture and to the Eastern Fathers, including St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Maximos Confessor.

In the Greek Lexicon it means to go forth, go out, or depart. I realize that it can’t be ripped away from its historical context, but even then I’ve always understood it to mean that the Spirit takes His origin from the Father. And Catholics agree.

 

[orthodoxlurker]

For all of our sakes, I hope it doesn’t mean that! Otherwise there could be no procession of any kind from Christ, neither in the eternal relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity nor in the external giving of the Spirit to the world. .

here
The Spirit as person (hypostasis) takes His origin (ekporeusis) from the font of divinity, i.e., the Father, and not from the Son. Sadly, you still have not come to grips with the fact that ekporeusis and proienai mean different things in Greek.

here
agree with you, because the person of the Spirit does not proceed (ekporeusis) from or through the Son, since He receives His subsistent being only from the Father, Who alone is the font of divinity (pege theotetos).

But sadly, Ghosty continues to assert that the hypostatic procession of origin (i.e., the ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit is from and through the Son.

here
As Reader Arsenios was kind enough to remind everyone, the inspired scriptures of the New Testament were written in Greek.

That said, the Eastern Fathers differentiate between the Greek terms used in scripture for the “sending” of the Spirit through the agency of the Son, and the “procession” of origin of the Spirit from the Father. Now in Greek the word “sending” does not concern the Spirit’s existential origin; instead, it refers to the giving of the Spirit as already existent. In other words, the terms used for “sending” involve the giving of something that already has subsistent being, which is then “sent to,” “carried to,” or “thrust into” another, while the word “proceed” (in the Greek) refers to the “going forth from” or the “departure from” something that is its cause. Moreover, it is important to note that not only does scripture attest to the Son “sending” the Spirit, but the Spirit also “sends” the Son (cf. Luke 4:18), and so it is clear that the words “send” or “sending” do not concern the existential origin of the divine persons (i.e., of either the Son or the Spirit), or one would have to say that the Son receives His existential origin (i.e., His subsistent being by generation) from the Spirit, since He is “sent” by the Spirit, and that notion is rejected as false by both the East and the West.

Thus, in Byzantine Triadology, taking into account the distinction between “sending” (pempo and aposteilai) and “proceeding” (ekporeusis), it follows that the Spirit is said to “proceed” only from the Father, since the Father is the sole existential cause of the Spirit as person, while — in addition to the Spirit’s procession of origin — He is “sent” through the Son into the world, but this “sending” of the Spirit concerns only His manifestation or shining forth, and not His eternal coming into existence as person.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - It is the Cappadocian Fathers who — holding fast to the teaching contained in the inspired scriptures (cf., John 15:26) — limit the use of the term ekporeusis to describing the Spirit’s origination as person from the Father, since He (i.e., the Father) is the sole source of divinity.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

For all of our sakes, I hope it doesn’t mean that! Otherwise there could be no procession of any kind from Christ, neither in the eternal relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity nor in the external giving of the Spirit to the world. Something obviously opposed to Scripture and to the Eastern Fathers, including St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Maximos Confessor.

In the Greek Lexicon it means to go forth, go out, or depart. I realize that it can’t be ripped away from its historical context, but even then I’ve always understood it to mean that the Spirit takes His origin from the Father. And Catholics agree.

It doesn’t preclude perichoresis, hence procession THROUGH the Son.

And I think you are confusing sending with procession, which is at the basis of the filioque’s confusion of the theological and economic Trinity.

 

[wynd]

Sure I do. We had a thread on it a little while ago.

You can test this for yourself with a thought experiment.

The Catholic Church adopts the Orthodox position re: the Filioque.

How many Patriarchs and Orthodox agree to papal authority the next day?

The number would approach zero, because this is a red herring.

Is it possible that the Orthodox believe there is more to remaining out of communion than just the Filioque?

 

[Hesychios]

The bottom line is, and remains, if the filioque issue were resolved in favor of the Orthodox position, they would simply find something else to justify their schism.

You don’t know this, you are simply kidding yourself.

Try a little more studying from reputable sources.

Michael

Sure I do. We had a thread on it a little while ago.

You can test this for yourself with a thought experiment.

The Catholic Church adopts the Orthodox position re: the Filioque.

How many Patriarchs and Orthodox agree to papal authority the next day?

The number would approach zero, because this is a red herring.

There is no ‘quid pro quo’ here. We do not trade one doctrine for another as if they were game pieces. We do not “find” or even “look” for these things, you shove them in our faces!

We just wish they would go away!

First you state that we would find something else to justify schism…

Schism is never justified. We do not justify it.

Then out of left field you bring in the issue of Papal authority, which is not the subject of this thread. Popes are allowed to have authority like any other bishop. I have no problem with that, do you? I would not strip him of his episcopal authority.

A Pope may have as much authority in his own diocese as any other bishop may exercise in his respective diocese. I say, let him have it!

The bishop of Rome is the Primate of all Italy (as that state has been constituted since the 19th century), no dispute there. I see that at this level the notion of primacy is somewhat like the eastern.

The bishop of Rome is (or was) Patriarch of the West. How ever the western churches define this role for the bishop of Rome, that is their business. I would consider that an internal matter of your church.

But if you are referring to Papal Universal Jurisdiction as lately defined at Vatican General Council of the West 1870AD, that is not an issue of schism, but one of heresy. Naturally you need to work on that.

By rejecting these errors with a little humility and repentence I am sure the western church will be accepted back into the communion of Orthodox autocephalic churches with open arms!

May God bless you and yours, you have my prayers for the recovery of your western Orthodox roots.

 

[tdgesq]

It doesn’t preclude perichoresis, hence procession THROUGH the Son.

And that was my only point - that ekporeuomai does not preclude the relationship of procession between the Son and the Spirit. I have no problem with your formula that the Spirit processes through the Son. We say “from,” but not in the sense of the Son being the origin of the Spirit.

I am curious though: what do you believe perichoresis has to do with procession of the Spirit through the Son?

And I think you are confusing sending with procession, which is at the basis of the filioque’s confusion of the theological and economic Trinity.

Nope. I’m not confusing the two, and neither does the RCC. It is interesting though that whenever Christ is mentioned in connection with the Spirit in the Scriptures or by the Fathers, there is a certain segment of the Orthodox that immediately invoke the economic Trinity - even when it’s clear that the relationship of the Persons is being discussed. Even if this were not the case, there is a problem with attributing things to the economic Trinity that are inconsistent with or utterly unexplainable from the standpoint of the Immanent Trinity. I’m not accusing you of doing this, but your concern that I am confusing the two makes me wonder.

 

[Teflon93]

There is no ‘quid pro quo’ here. We do not trade one doctrine for another as if they were game pieces. We do not “find” or even “look” for these things, you shove them in our faces!

We just wish they would go away!

First you state that we would find something else to justify schism…

Schism is never justified. We do not justify it.

Then out of left field you bring in the issue of Papal authority, which is not the subject of this thread. Popes are allowed to have authority like any other bishop. I have no problem with that, do you? I would not strip him of his episcopal authority.

A Pope may have as much authority in his own diocese as any other bishop may exercise in his respective diocese. I say, let him have it!

The bishop of Rome is the Primate of all Italy (as that state has been constituted since the 19th century), no dispute there. I see that at this level the notion of primacy is somewhat like the eastern.

The bishop of Rome is (or was) Patriarch of the West. How ever the western churches define this role for the bishop of Rome, that is their business. I would consider that an internal matter of your church.

But if you are referring to Papal Universal Jurisdiction as lately defined at Vatican General Council of the West 1870AD, that is not an issue of schism, but one of heresy. Naturally you need to work on that.

By rejecting these errors with a little humility and repentence I am sure the western church will be accepted back into the communion of Orthodox autocephalic churches with open arms!

May God bless you and yours, you have my prayers for the recovery of your western Orthodox roots.

Well, thank you for proving both of my points: the filioque is a red herring, and it is Orthodox pride which keeps them out of full communion.

 

[Hesychios]

Well, thank you for proving both of my points: the filioque is a red herring, and it is Orthodox pride which keeps them out of full communion.

If you actually read my response, as surely everyone else here will, you will see nothing of the kind.

It would be nice to see you contribute some real apologetics on behalf of your faith here, as well as your unfounded opinions.

Michael

 

[Teflon93]

If you actually read my response, as surely everyone else here will, you will see nothing of the kind.

It would be nice to see you contribute some real apologetics on behalf of your faith here, as well as your unfounded opinions.

Michael

The nice things about threads is they can be read by anybody.

My contribution here was in forwarding to claims:

1. The Filioque is not important because the Orthodox will not return to full communion even if it were immediately resolved in their favor.
2. The real issue is the pride of the Orthodox—they simply will not accept the authority of the Pope regardless.

Your last post simply confirmed both.

So why pretend otherwise?

 

[Hesychios]

The nice things about threads is they can be read by anybody.

1. The real issue is the pride of the Orthodox–

Pride is a sin. No one is immune from sin, unfortunately. But the issues are real.

1. The Filioque is not important because the Orthodox will not return to full communion even if it were immediately resolved in their favor.

-they simply will not accept the authority of the Pope regardless.

So, am I reading you right?: There is no point in correcting the heresy of the filioque since it will not buy the Greeks into the heresy of Universal Jurisdiction?

The way you have structured your argument, Papal Authority trumps the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit. Is that really what you think about all of this? Do you call this apologetics?

I wonder, can you find a way to make your stated position even a little bit more appealing?

BTW, there have been several informative threads on the filioque in the Eastern Churches section. You should check them out.

 

[Teflon93]

Pride is a sin. No one is immune from sin, unfortunately. But the issues are real.

So, am I reading you right?: There is no point in correcting the heresy of the filioque since it will not buy the Greeks into the heresy of Universal Jurisdiction?

Your quarrel is with Christ, not me. He gave Peter the keys. It is impossible to read the Gospel and not note the primacy of Peter throughout—perhaps the sin of pride contributes to being unwilling to see what is plain to see when it contradicts your belief?

The way you have structured your argument, Papal Authority trumps the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit. Is that really what you think about all of this? Do you call this apologetics?

 

[bobzills]

By rejecting these errors with a little humility and repentence I am sure the western church will be accepted back into the communion of Orthodox autocephalic churches with open arms!

There was a list posted a while back of other issues which concern some Orthodox Christians, in addition to the ones which you have mentioned here. For example, there was expressed some concern about the modern Catholic liturgy.

 

[Hesychios]

Your quarrel is with Christ, not me. He gave Peter the keys. It is impossible to read the Gospel and not note the primacy of Peter throughout—perhaps the sin of pride contributes to being unwilling to see what is plain to see when it contradicts your belief?

No quarrel with Christ.

He runs our church.

You confuse primacy with supremacy, two different things. In Orthodoxy primacy is well understood, it is applied in situations all over the church.

You would be hard-pressed to find any examples of St Peter

• appointing new Apostles or bishops everywhere under his own authority,
• composing and codifying canons all by himself,
• running and overruling Councils.
• claiming to be infallible
  Peter of all people would not claim to be infallible! And he would also know that the power to bind and loosen was given to all of the Apostles, he was there after all.

Peter is ours too. We honor the memory of all of our Apostolic founders.

I love our Orthodox brothers and sisters, millions of whom have been martyred throughout the ages for not kowtowing to this or that secular ruler. I love the Orthodox liturgy, which is one of the most beautiful in the world. I simply wish they were a bit less proud and more interested in Christian unity. Wouldn’t it be marvelous if Greek, Eastern, and Russian Orthodox were firmly united?

The Orthodox churches are united in Faith and discipline. We still have the original canons and follow them.

We still have the original ecclesiology of the church, no changes there.

If Christian unity is important, that is.

It has always been.

The issue which separates us is papal authority. The filioque is a red herring.

I disagree, it was the filioque that was specifically the charge in Cardinal Humberto’s Bull excommunicating Constantinople almost one thousand years ago.. It is obviously central to the question of communion between us.

In fact, the two cardinals (one to be a future Pope!) mistakenly charged the East with REMOVING the filioque from our Creed! (as if that were possible). If that was not a lie, it was a huge blunder since it would reveal that they knew little of their own doctrinal history, and the late introduction of the interpolation.

So why not discuss papal authority instead?

The last I saw this thread was about the filioque and it’s importance.

Michael

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And that was my only point - that ekporeuomai does not preclude the relationship of procession between the Son and the Spirit. I have no problem with your formula that the Spirit processes through the Son. We say “from,” but not in the sense of the Son being the origin of the Spirit.

Ekporeuomai does preclude procession from the Son, unless you are willing to concede that the Son is the source of the Spirit, which neither we nor your magisterium are willing to do.

I am curious though: what do you believe perichoresis has to do with procession of the Spirit through the Son?

Because it is both eternal yet does not involve the identity of the persons.

Nope. I’m not confusing the two, and neither does the RCC. It is interesting though that whenever Christ is mentioned in connection with the Spirit in the Scriptures or by the Fathers, there is a certain segment of the Orthodox that immediately invoke the economic Trinity - even when it’s clear that the relationship of the Persons is being discussed. Even if this were not the case, there is a problem with attributing things to the economic Trinity that are inconsistent with or utterly unexplainable from the standpoint of the Immanent Trinity. I’m not accusing you of doing this, but your concern that I am confusing the two makes me wonder.

All the references to sending as proof of the filioque are ALL instances of the economic Trinity. Since creation is involved (the Apostles, etc) it cannot be otherwise.

What scripture or Father are you talking about where it is clear that the Persons is being discussed?

 

[tdgesq]

Ekporeuomai does preclude procession from the Son, unless you are willing to concede that the Son is the source of the Spirit, which neither we nor your magisterium are willing to do.

Let’s see if this takes care of your problem. Does “from” always mean “source” or “origin”? A simple “yes” or “no” will do so I can answer the rest of your post.

 

[Montalban]

Let’s see if this takes care of your problem. Does “from” always mean “source” or “origin”? A simple “yes” or “no” will do so I can answer the rest of your post.

The Catholic doctrine is that Jesus is the start/origin of the Holy Spirit. He is eternally from the Son.

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/246.htm

Note that the Father has given to the Son all. And as the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit, then so must the Son.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/248.htm

Both Father and Son are the first principle of the Holy Spirit

That’s the whole reason to say it’s a ‘double procession’. The Catholic Encyclopaedia takes “procession” as being a point of origin…
“We need not dwell at length on the precise meaning of the Procession in God. (See TRINITY.) It will suffice here to remark that by this word we mean the relation of origin that exists between one Divine Person and another, or between one and the two others as its principle of origin. The Son proceeds from the Father; the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son…”
newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

 

[smgriz]

I am surprised with the OC’s attitude on the filioque. I think that neither way is completly covers what the term is trying to express.

How about “proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son”?

And to argue about such is counter-productive.

Don’t we both, OC and RCC, believe in the Trinity and that it always was in the beginning, now, and through all ages.?

griz