What are the implications of the "filioque" doctrine?

[Madaglan]

I know that one of major issues which led to the split between the Eastern and the Western church was filioque: the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son. My question: Does it really matter whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, or from only the Father, and later passed down through the Son? I just don’t see the theological implications either way. I’ve read that some Catholics look at the Orthodox belief and hold that it is essentially the same as filioque, only described in different words. However, the Orthodox probably believe differently.

I know a lot has been said about how this doctrine came about, and the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of how it became Church dogma. But what are the implications of filioque v. the Orthodox view of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father first and then only through the Son?

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey Mad,
Have ya thought of postin’ this one to the AAA forum?
It’s got some historical implications that I don’t think most of us know enough to answer. I would, however like to see the answer myself so please PM me when ya get an answer if ya don’t mind.
Thanks!

 

[Madaglan]

sure, i’ll post on AAA

 

[jimmy]

I would like to see that answer too.

 

[Madaglan]

I posted the question on AAA. I posted it as a two part question: 1a) Does filioque really matter as a doctrine in itself; 1b) If so, why? Hopefully the apologists don’t think that I asked two completely separate questions rather than asking two linked questions.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Madaglan:

I know that one of major issues which led to the split between the Eastern and the Western church was filioque: the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son. My question: Does it really matter whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, or from only the Father, and later passed down through the Son? I just don’t see the theological implications either way. I’ve read that some Catholics look at the Orthodox belief and hold that it is essentially the same as filioque, only described in different words. However, the Orthodox probably believe differently

We certainly do!

If you want a serious look at the practical effects which, in the Orthodox view, resulted in the Western Church ffrom the introduction of the filioque, then the absolute must-read is Philip Sherrards’ The Greek East and the Latin West

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/9607120043/102-0312374-2392100?v=glance

He shows how the filioque gave rise to the centralised Roman Catholic hierarchical system. It’s great reading.

"The differences between Eastern and Western Christianity came about in part because of their divergences in views of God’s ontological Being. According to the Greeks, a distinction exists between God’s Essence, which has no relationship to anything of which can be conceived of and is hence Beyond Being itself; juxtaposed with God’s Energies that man can experience from the Father via the action of the Son/Logos and the Holy Spirit. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all of the same Essence. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, not from both “the Father and the Son” according to a Latin addition to the Nicene Creed. This is because the Father is the principle source of the Godhead and the roles of the Father and the Son in the Hypostatic Union are not confused. The Latin addition of “and the Son” and its subsequent defense in the medieval Scholastic theology of Thomas Aquinas has its origins in the Aristotelian concept of God as Being itself. If the three Persons of the Trinity are of the same Being in the Western sense then the logical outcome is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This may sound like an extremely obscure and irrelevant theological debate, which it is for most people, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or otherwise. Nevertheless, it was, as Sherrard explains, this view of theology that provided the impetus for the “world domination” schemes of the Papacy and the centralization of the Roman Church’s ecclesiastical authority during the middle ages."

 

[Todd_Easton]

The Orthodox say the Spirit is from the Father through the Son; Catholics say the Spirit is from the Father and the Son. According to early Christian writers, both statements are true:

Tertullian, A.D. 213, says, “I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son … The Spirit, then, is … from God and the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1, 8:6)

St. Hilary of Poitiers, A.D. 356-359, says of the Holy Spirit, “who is from the Father and the Son, His sources” … Your Holy Spirit is from You [Father] through Him [the Son]" (On the Trinity, 2:29, 12:25)

 

[diarmait]

Todd Easton:

The Orthodox say the Spirit is from the Father through the Son; Catholics say the Spirit is from the Father and the Son. According to early Christian writers, both statements are true:

Tertullian, A.D. 213, says, “I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son … The Spirit, then, is … from God and the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1, 8:6)

St. Hilary of Poitiers, A.D. 356-359, says of the Holy Spirit, “who is from the Father and the Son, His sources” … Your Holy Spirit is from You [Father] through Him [the Son]" (On the Trinity, 2:29, 12:25)

St. Thomas Aquinas too says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that He proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Further, St. Thomas gives several arguments against the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (although he eventually concludes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son).

 

[mtr01]

"The differences between Eastern and Western Christianity came about in part because of their divergences in views of God’s ontological Being. According to the Greeks, a distinction exists between God’s Essence, which has no relationship to anything of which can be conceived of and is hence Beyond Being itself; juxtaposed with God’s Energies that man can experience from the Father via the action of the Son/Logos and the Holy Spirit. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all of the same Essence. The Latin addition of “and the Son” and its subsequent defense in the medieval Scholastic theology of Thomas Aquinas has its origins in the Aristotelian concept of God as Being itself. If the three Persons of the Trinity are of the same Being in the Western sense then the logical outcome is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

Father, this is interesting to me, and I have a question.

From what I can tell there are two passages from the Greek version of the Creed which apply here:

τουτέστιν εκ της ουσίας του πατρός

Now, I would take “ουσίας του πατρός” to be (as your post states) “of the essence of the Father”. But then the text states:

΄ομοούσιον τωι πατρί

To me (and mind you I’m no Greek scholar), this would be homoousios, which would be translated as “consubstantial” or “of the same being”.

Now, that being said, how is "΄ομοούσιον τωι πατρί " different from the Latin understanding of the Son and the Father as one in being? And if it’s not, doesn’t that really mean the East and West are “essentially” equivalent in our beliefs?

Greek Creed:

Πιστεύομεν εις ΄ενα Θεον Πατερα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ορατων τε και αοράτων ποιητήν.

Πιστεύομεν εισ ΄ενα κύριον `Ιησουν Χριστον, τον υ΄ιον του θεου, γεννηζέντα εκ του πατρος μονογενη, τουτέστιν εκ της ουσίας του πατρός, θεον εκ θεου αληθινου, γεννηθέντα, ου ποιηθέντα, ΄ομοούσιον τωι πατρί δι οϋ τα πάντα εγένετο, τα τε εν τωι ουρανωι και τα επι της γης τον δι ΄ημας τους ανθρώπους και δα την ΄ημετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα και σαρκωθέντα και ενανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα, και αναστάντα τηι τριτηι ΄ημέραι, και ανελθοντα εις τους οθρανούς, και ερχόμενον κριναι ζωντασ και νεκρούς. Και εις το ΄Αγιον Πνευμα.
Τους δε λέγοντας, ΄οτι ΄ην ποτε ΄ότε οθκ ΄ην, και πριν γεννηθηναι ουκ ΄ην, και ΄οτι εξ ΄ετερας ΄υποστάσεως η ουσιας φάσκοντας ειναι, η κτιστόν,] τρεπτον η αλλοιωτον τον υ΄ιον του θεου, τούτους] αναθεματίζει ΄η καθολικη και αποστολικη] εκκλησία.

 

[Rae]

Hi.

I just browsed through some of this conversation. I just thought
I’d say that, since it was changed, from the historic, original way (in the creed), then it would seem safer to concede on the issue.

I’d like to comment that, as a Byzantine Catholic, our church(s) have been given the okay to change it back to the original wording. So now, we only state, in our church, “proceeds from the Father”. I feel better sticking with how the early church stated it. That’s my opinion. It’s not a very scholarly one, but I just thought that, perhaps, not everyone knows that Eastern Catholics have made that change. Seems to me, that if it has been changed, with approval from the Holy Father, then it shouldn’t be such a major dividing factor between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. I hope that we will see an end to division over this point, and will pray for future unity.

 

[mtr01]

Rae:

Seems to me, that if it has been changed, with approval from the Holy Father, then it shouldn’t be such a major dividing factor between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. I hope that we will see an end to division over this point, and will pray for future unity.

I would hope that you’re right. However (IMHO) the division over filioque probably had it’s roots in language. Almost universally, the Western Church did not speak Greek, while the Eastern Church (Orthodox) did not speak Latin. As a result you had a bunch of people trying to work out issues without being able to understand each other. I think the issue over the filioque, as a result, boils down to one of language, as I really don’t think the theology is significantly different. However, since the schism, there have been 1200 years (600 if you take into account Florence) worth of theologians seeting out to demonstrate how their side is “right”, while the other side is “wrong”. In order for any hope of unity, all of these layers or theology will have to be peeled back to get to the Truth.

 

[RNRobert]

I recently read H.W. Crocker III’s book Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church. He writes that Pope Leo III had reservations about the filioque, but felt that it was necessary in converting the Western tribes (some of whom had been Arians) in order to emphasize the Godhood of Jesus.

 

[Exporter]

Oh my, I hesitate to venture a question with so many who know more than I. But I do remember that Jesus said, “I will send a comforter”. Is that correct?

I have wondered for many years who was in the furnace when three Jewish boys Shradrach, etc, were tossed into the furnace. There was a fourth one there. Some have told me it was Jesus, but I secretly thought it was the Holy Spirit.

And if it was the Holy Spirit, then He, the Holy Spirit had already made an appearance on earth. Yet in the NT Jesus said HE would send a comforter (the Holy Spirit).

Had the Holy Spirit never before come to earth? Who spoke to the OT Jewish Prophets? Yes, some speakers were Angels, but who else? When it is written that God spoke to a prophet, could that have been the Holy Spirit? God is in heaven, and the Holy Spirit could have come to earth- am I all wet?

In our Nicene Creed we say…".the only-begotten Son of God; Light of Light;true God of true God. Begotten not made; of one being with the Father…then later…And I believe in the Holy Ghost, Lord and Giver of life, who procedes from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is no less adored and glorified: Who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."… .

One can read this two ways. Very simply one can say the Holy Spirit emerged (came from) both the Father and the Son. Or one can say it means that the Holy Spirit is together with the Father and the Son: which tells me that all three are One. This supports the concept of the Trinity - separate personalities but yet one and the Same.

This leads to a simple question. When I pray to the Holy Spirit, and I do, is my prayer automatically shunted over to Jesus and the Father. If I ask the Holy Spirit to carry my prayers to heaven, is that really necessary, since the Holy Spirit is God here on earth. I realise that I am thinking like a man. What am I missing? If the Holy Spirit procedes only from the Father, then the Holy Spirit cannot represent Jesus here, now, on earth. Am I correct?

A last question. If the Trinity is as we Catholics say it is -3 in one, yet separate, an engineer/designer would say that is redundant. Why have all three when they are actually one and the same? NASA and aircraft designers may say,“We have redundency as a back-up system”. But when applying that to God, to me it seems to belittle God. Oh my, I have shown my ignorance. I have saeprated the 3 members of the Trinity. When I am in Church and look at the large crucifix - I see Jesus, not God & the Holy Ghost.

 

[GAssisi]

Everyone here has contributed beautifully to the understanding of the Filioque between East and West (especially Mtr’s incisive question regarding the Greek)–well, except for Father Ambrose. Even the short excerpt given by Father Ambrose from Sherrard’s book indicates that Sherrard does not understand the doctrine of Filioque enough to even write about it. The Filioque is a WESTERN development and can only be understood in light of WESTERN theology and terms. Sharrard obviously does not have this particular expertise.

Therefore, reading this issue from the Eastern Orthodox perspective is not recommended since there will always be an anti-papal agenda present, and so misrepresentations of the Catholic position will be rampant.

God bless,
Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Everyone here has contributed beautifully to the understanding of the Filioque between East and West (especially Mtr’s incisive question regarding the Greek)–well, except for Father Ambrose. Even the short excerpt given by Father Ambrose from Sherrard’s book indicates that Sherrard does not understand the doctrine of Filioque enough to even write about it. The Filioque is a WESTERN development and can only be understood in light of WESTERN theology and terms. Sharrard obviously does not have this particular expertise.

Therefore, reading this issue from the Eastern Orthodox perspective is not recommended since there will always be an anti-papal agenda present, and so misrepresentations of the Catholic position will be rampant.

I believe you are attempting to stifle discussion in this thread?

The point of this thread is the question posed by Madaglan in the first post:

But what are the implications of filioque v. the Orthodox view of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father first and then only through the Son?

However, if you have no interest in the Orthodox view and merely want to be uncharitable and mischaracterise the Orthodox view as as “anti-papal propaganda” then there is no point in the Orthodox participating.

 

[twf]

Father, I have trouble seeing the difference, to be honest, despite your explanation. Forgive my Western mind, but could you perhaps make a brief point form summary of how we understand the essence of God different than does the East?

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

It is rather obtuse to claim that you (or rather the reference you gave) was not spewing “anti-papal” propaganda when the very excerpt you included bespeaks of charges of “world domination.” If you want us to listen to a presentation of the Orthodox understanding of the Filioque, you might try presenting an author that is less obviously anti-papal. D’accord?

God bless,

Greg

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

It is rather obtuse to claim that you (or rather the reference you gave) was not spewing “anti-papal” propaganda when the very excerpt you included bespeaks of charges of “world domination.” If you want us to listen to a presentation of the Orthodox understanding of the Filioque, you might try presenting an author that is less obviously anti-papal. D’accord

The paragraph I provided was a critique of the book, and not from the book’s author.

World domination? The Bishop of Rome makes the claim of being the dominant bishop and to have authority over the whole world. “World domination” seems, in the context, accurate.

I still recommend Philip Sherrard’s book and his chapter on the way the filioque has effected the structure of the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy. It is not important whether you are hostile or not to what he says - it is the Orthodox viewpoint and that is what was asked for in this thread and what I was responding to

 

[AndyF]

Exporter:

Oh my, I hesitate to venture a question with so many who know more than I. .

You and I are in the same boat.

I’m just guessing here but Jesus forgives sins, and he warns and makes a distinction between sins per se and sins against the Holy Spirit. From this observation,Jesus could be relaying a condition set by the Spirit and not in his domain.

This would suppose the Spirit proceeds from the Father and so does the Son, each setting his own conditions. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, why would he consider offences against the Spirit of higher importance than offences to himself and the Father which he forgives?

Andy

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Filioque controversy - matter of semantics or different triadology

The Filioque heresy in essence originates from the failure to differentiate among relations between the three Divine Persons in eternity and in the economy of salvation. Its crucial practical consequence is the lack of true understanding of “personality” in both divine and human aspects, which is particularly reflected in deviant papal ecclesiology. [It is this point which Philip Sherrard develops in “*The Greek East and Latin West”] The Orthodox East sees triadic unity primarily in the person of God the Father, from whom the Son, who is consubstantial (Gr. homousion) to the Father, is being eternally born; and from whom the Spirit eternally proceeds (Gr. ekporeuetai). Although the Spirit shares the same essence as the Son and is sent by the Son into the world in the economy of salvation, eternally the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, as the sole source and cause (Gr. aitia) of the divine essence. On the other hand, the medieval West saw the unity of the divine persons more in the form of a metaphysical divine essence. In order to confirm the unity of essence of the Father and the Son (the main challenge of Arianism), it proclaimed that the Holy Spirit “eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son as from one principle and by one single spiration” (ex Utroque aeternaliter tamquam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit, Lyon 1274) [3].

Filioque, therefore, is not only an uncanonical addendum to the Orthodox Symbol of Faith but also creates confusion in the hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son, and denigrates the Person of the Holy Spirit, reducing It to a mere link of their mutual love.

From
kosovo.com/erpkiminfo_jan04/erpkiminfo19jan04church.html

View of the Orthodox Church on the “Great Schism” of 1054
Manifestation of fundamental differences