Catholic curious about filioque

[James Beran]

Hi, I'm new to this board and know very little about Orthodoxy, one of the things I do know is that filoque is one of the biggest issues that seperates our churches. I was wondering what the Orthodox objection to "and the son" is. I know some don't like it because it wasn't in the original creed, but I'm more curious to the theological objections to it. Any comments would be helpful.

[Herman Blaydoe]

that would be the biggest argument that Orthodoxy has, it was a unilateral addition to the basic symbol of our Faith.

Some say that the filioque demeans the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then they both have something that the Holy Spirit doesn't have, they are no longer co-equal, but the intricacies of Trinitarian Theology are not, admittedly, my strong suit.

[Ken McRae]

Hello James ~

Below is a link to a paper that'll provide some assistance. I'll add another link to this, just as soon as I can track it down again. Hope this helps!

in humility,
Theophilus


The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue? (http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.htm)

An Agreed Statement of the
North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation

Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
October 25, 2003

From 1999 until 2003, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consul*tation has focused its discussions on an issue that has been identified, for more than twelve centuries, as one of the root causes of division between our Churches: our divergent ways of conceiving and speaking about the origin of the Holy Spirit within the inner life of the triune God. Although both of our traditions profess “the faith of Nicaea” as the normative expression of our understanding of God and God’s involvement in his creation, and take as the classical statement of that faith the revised version of the Nicene creed associated with the First Council of Constantinople of 381, most Catholics and other Western Christians have used, since at least the late sixth century, a Latin version of that Creed, which adds to its confession that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” the word Filioque: “and from the Son”. For most Western Christians, this term continues to be a part of the central formulation of their faith, a formulation proclaimed in the liturgy and used as the basis of catechesis and theological reflection. It is, for Catholics and most Protestants, simply a part of the ordinary teaching of the Church, and as such, integral to their understanding of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. Yet since at least the late eighth century, the presence of this term in the Western version of the Creed has been a source of scandal for Eastern Christians, both because of the Trinitarian theology it expresses, and because it had been adopted by a growing number of Churches in the West into the canonical formulation of a received ecumenical council without corres*ponding ecumenical agreement. As the medieval rift between Eastern and Western Christians grew more serious, the theology associated with the term Filioque, and the issues of Church structure and authority raised by its adoption, grew into a symbol of difference, a classic token of what each side of divided Christendom has found lacking or distorted in the other.

(N.B. For the rest of this paper, please click on its title.)

ADDITIONAL LINKS:-

1 - Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comprehensive and Impartial Guide to (the) Issues and Materials (http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/orthodoxy_and_catholicism/2.html)

2 - A Page Dedicated to the "Dialog of Love" Between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches (http://web.archive.org/web/20020124171905/http://praiseofglory.com/andtheson.htm/)

3 - A Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue on the Filioque (http://web.archive.org/web/20031204112815/http://ic.net/%7Eerasmus/RAZ251.HTM)

4 - To the Praise of His Glory (http://www.praiseofglory.com/)

(Message edited by theophilus on 19 April, 2005)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The filioque is a sign of a deeper theological problem which occured in the west as it gradually drifted away from the Patristic theological vision of the Church. It concerns or is a result not just of how the Church understands the Holy Trinity. More fundamentally for the Orthodox it is representative of a much more fundamental problem involving ecclesiological vision and theanthropic life.

This is why no matter how many statements come out the Orthodox will not truly accept them unless the fundamental underlying problem is dealt with first.

For statements do not address the actual issue which our simplest Baba understands. That is- we must put an end to trying to define the life of the Church by the measure of this world; and we must begin once again to breathe the ascetic breath of the Holy Spirit so that the Church is recognisably "not of this world".

It is theologically & also historically wrong to claim that it is the filioque which caused the seperation between us. (Otherwise the Schism would have occured at the time of St. Photios) It never was a cause but rather a sign or symptom of something more fundamentally divisive which has not been openly dealt with to this day.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I wrote this yesterday


It is theologically & also historically wrong to claim that it is the filioque which caused the seperation between us. (Otherwise the Schism would have occured at the time of St. Photios) It never was a cause but rather a sign or symptom of something more fundamentally divisive which has not been openly dealt with to this day.

I should have been more clear when I wrote "not been openly dealt with to this day" that I was referring to the offical committees that meet periodically trying to resolve the different issues that divide us. On the personal level, from Patriarch to bishop to monastic & laity, the fundamental problem that divides us is often referred to. But for some reason (maybe even a good one) we never, at least to my knowledge, bring up openly what really bothers us & why we remain seperate no matter how many agreements & meetings there are.

And it's interesting because we have our own unique way of reacting to these meetings and agreements- it partly defines who we are as Orthodox-as at the councils of Lyons & Ferrara/Florence. Which admittedly is hard for others to understand. Not that the "issues" which divide us are not very important- but really we are talking about a fundamental change of mind-set & heart. Because for us, it was this change which produced things like the filioque.

It is this spirit which is so difficult to convey to our brothers & sisters outside of Orthodoxy which St Mark of Ephesus tried to convey in his closing words to the Ferrara/Florence council.


We beseech you, fathers, brothers, honourable sirs, as we besought you earlier, in the depths of compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ: whoever amongst us has love, though they are useless, pitiable, sinners and hopeless, come back into good concord with us and the holy Fathers, which we possessed when East & West were the same, when there was no schism and we considered one another as brothers. Let us revere our common Fathers and honor their decrees and fear their threats; let us preserve the traditions. Let us all together, with the same Faith, perceptions, and dispositions, with one mind and one heart, glorify the all-honourable and majestic name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now & ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Denise Marie Johnson]

Dear James,

I attend a Byzantine Catholic church. We do not say the Filioque in the Creed. We say the Creed correctly "The Holy Spirit....proceeds from the Father." I have heard that Pope JPII sometimes said the Creed without the Filioque (maybe someone knows more accurately than me). Maybe someday the whole Catholic church will return to saying the Creed correctly.... like the Orthodox.

Denise

[Ken McRae]

1 - THE FILIOQUE: A VIEW FROM THE VATICAN ON THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/statement.htm)

At a meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, Pope John Paul II called for clarification of the filioque clause of the Creed -- 'proceeds from the Father and the Son.'

Text from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Found on the web pages of a Papal Catholic.

An Orthodox commentary on the document (http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm) can also be found at this site, as well as a history of the Filioque, and traditional Orthodox objections. The views expressed in this piece are not those of this website but are presented for fairness and so that the can be seen in context.

2 - ONE SINGLE SOURCE: METROPOLITAN JOHN ZIZIOULAS' COMMENTARY ON THE ABOVE DOCUMENT (http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm), ENTITLED 'THE FILIOQUE: A VIEW FROM THE VATICAN'

East and West can easily continue dialogue also as regards the Filioque question providing there is full acceptance of the doctrine of tradition on the monarchia of the Father. The monarchia of the Father means that the Father is the sole cause/origin both of the Son and of the Spirit.

This is a very valuable statement on the thorny issue of the Filioque, which clarifies many aspects of the position of the Roman Catholic theology on this matter. I am sure that this statement will play a very important role in the official theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church when it comes to the point of discussing this issue. My reaction as an Orthodox theologian to this document can be summarized in the following observations:

1. It is with deep satisfaction that I read in the document the emphatic assertion that no confession of faith belonging to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict the expression of faith of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 381) which has been taught and professed by the undivided Church. This is a very good basis for discussion.

(N.B. Click on the above link for the rest of the commentary.)

3 - Speeches of Pope John Paul II and Metropolitan John of Pergamon (http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/john_pergamon_john_paul2.htm)

Made in private audience following a Mass to celebrate the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.

Rome, 28 June 1998

Pope John Paul II

"Dear Brothers in Christ, I cordially welcome you, the delegates of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who have come to Rome to take part in the solemn Eucharistic celebration to mark the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul. For a number of years, this brotherly exchange has brought together representatives of the church which owes its beginnings to the apostolate of Sts. Peter and Paul here in Rome and the church which traces its origin to St. Andrew.

The two brother Apostles Peter and Andrew, patrons respectively of the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople, bring to mind the vocation received from the Lord to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom: "As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon, who was called Peter, and his brother Andrew; they were making a cast in the lake with their net, for they were fishermen. And he said to them, 'Follow me and I will make you fishers of men'" (Mt 4:23).

This is the perennial task of the disciples of the Lord in every age and every place: the proclamation of the kingdom and the healing of the evils afflicting the People of God. As we approach the third millennium, the Spirit makes us understand the urgency of a more intense dedication to this task. And the witness of Christian unity becomes even more imperative: "that they may all be one...so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (Jn 17:21). In this perspective, it is with joy that I recall the Joint Declaration signed by His Holiness Bartholomew I and myself, in which we urged Catholics and Orthodox "to make this spiritual pilgrimage together towards the Jubilee." We expressed our shared conviction that "reflection, prayer, dialogue, reciprocal forgiveness and mutual fraternal love will bring us closer to the Lord, and will help us better to understand his will for the Church and for humanity." Your presence among us for the Solemnity of the Apostles Peter and Paul is a clear sign of our common will to undertake this journey in fraternal charity and in love for the truth, trusting in Jesus Christ, the only Lord and Savior of the world.

I ask you to take the assurance of my cordial greeting and fraternal regard to His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch. May God who has begun a good work in us bring it to completion. Amen."


Metropolitan John of Pergamon (Gave This Speech in Reply):-

"Your Holiness, We give glory and thanks to the Triune God for granting us the great blessing to visit Your Holiness as official representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Church of Constantinople on the occasion of the Feast of the Patron Saint of the venerable Church of Rome, the church presiding in love," according to the well-known expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

It is indeed a distinct privilege and a great honor for myself and my brothers in Christ, the Right Reverend Emmanuel, Bishop of Reghion, and the Reverend Presbyter Christos Christakis, who accompany me, to stand at this moment before Your Holiness as participants in a long tradition of exchange of official visits between our two ancient churches on the occasion of the feasts of their respective Patron Saints. Such a sacred custom re-affirms and deepens the bond of love which unites our two churches, and paves the way to the full unity which our Lord demands from us. His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, fully conscious of the significance of this sacred custom, which he blessed himself with his personal visit to You on the same occasion three years ago, has commanded us to offer You the assurance of his feelings of deep brotherly love and honor, as well as of his firm commitment to the holy task of furthering and deepening the unity of our two churches.

It is indeed for the sake of this sacred cause of unity that our two churches are officially engaged in theological dialogue so that on the basis of their common heritage of the first thousand years of the Church’s life they may remove the obstacles to full communion that have appeared since the tragic Schism which has separated us for almost a millennium now. The bitter experience of this long period of separation has made us all aware of the need to accelerate the process of restoring our full communion so that the approaching third millennium of the Christian era may find the Church of God visibly united as she was before the great Schism. As Your Holiness has aptly put it some years ago, East and West are the two lungs by which the Church breaths; their unity is essential to the healthy life of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Your Holiness, As we strive to reach the restoration of the full communion of our churches through the dialogue of love and truth, trying to overcome obstacles, old and new, on our way, we are encouraged by the declarations of support Your Holiness repeatedly offers to this sacred goal. We are particularly appreciative of Your Encyclical Ut Unum Sint and the possibilities it offers for a constructive discussion of certain fundamental ecclesiological questions affecting our unity. The invitation your holiness has addressed to all Christians for a frank and open discussion of the subject of the Petrine ministry in the Church is already leading to important discussions. Equally, the document of the Pontifical Council for Unity on the Procession of the Holy Spirit offers the basis for important clarifications concerning an issue that has that has divided West and East for such a long time. We in the Orthodox Church are very pleased that theology is taken seriously in our efforts to restore full communion, for we believe that Truth must be the solid foundation for a lasting and God-pleasing unity.

Your Holiness, As we approach the end of this millennium we become aware of the Churchs great responsibility towards humanity. The impressive achievements of science and technology risk becoming a serious threat to the dignity of the human person and the survival of Gods creation, as they do not seem to be accompanied by a respect for ethical values. The repeated appeals and efforts of Your Holiness for the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person, as well as the initiatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the protection of the natural environment, indicate our awareness of the Church’s responsibility today. Our voice and our efforts, however, can be credible in the contemporary world only if our divisions are healed and overcome.

With these thoughts, which our Patriarchal delegation with humility and respect wishes to express to Your Holiness on this solemn occasion of today’s great Feast, we have the honor and the privilege to ask You to receive from our hands the present personal Letter of His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, together with His Holy Synods congratulations and good wishes on the Patron Feast of your church.

May the Lord, through the supplication of His Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, whose memory we celebrate today, grant Your Holiness health and strength for many years to come, to the glory of the Triune God and for the benefit of the unity of all in Christ's name."

(Message edited by theophilus on 20 April, 2005)

[Petros L.]

Basically Jesus Christ Himself when talking about the Holy Spirit said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not the Father and Son, that's why it was against original Church teaching to say proceeds from the Father and Son.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Dear James Baren,

I'm Greek Orthodox by the way. One of the interesting things is that while studying Patristics at St Andrew's Theological College, I was made aware to the fact that the Orthodox Church does not believe in the filioque as described by the Roman Catholic Church, but does on the other hand have a "small filioque" if it is justified to call it this.

The Orthodox Church believes that there is a procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son and not from the Father and the Son. The Orthodox understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit comes from the use of the Greek word ekporeusis which means that there is One source, whereas in the Latin the word used processio denotes something else. The Latin translation, processio does not in fact have the same meaning as the Greek original found in the Nicean Creed : ekporeuete and denotes that the Holy Spirit comes via or through the Father and the Son. So while the East would be happy with such an understanding, if they were to understand this Latin clause, the West at the same time, due to their lack of understanding of the Greek, could not understand why the Eastern Churches would object so much to such a change.

Bishop Kallistos Ware has recently researched this topic further and has understood this same thing. Please read this, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/filioque.html
This link I found should explain what I'm talking about.

Hopefully this will help us all understand why the Orthodox Church objected and still objects so powerfully to the changing of the original Creed. This is perhaps the work of the "Babylonian curse", always dividing us. But if we partake in the grace and power of Pentecost I blieve and pray that this misunderstanding on both sides can be overcome one day through better communication with each other.

But one of the more important lessons is that the Church must make decisions together in order not to become and be perceived as autocratic and despotic. This is why we have councils and synods and believe in the consensus of the fathers in making decisions in the Church.

May God Bless Us All

INXC, Kosmas

[Mina Monir]

Hi from Alexandria ... church of Athanasius and Cyril the pillars of faith .

i'm interested to focus in the greek orthodox terminology about the following points :

1) Greek church mentioned in its historical great agreement with the oriental orthodox that they use the Cyriallian expressions ... and especially MIAPHYSIS TOU THEO LOGO SESARKOMENE, and I remember that Saint Cyril used this expression and the expression: one natured incarnated from two natures ... not OF two to what extent do u use this terminology in your liturgical services and your christological writings?

2) Leo of Rome who restored the fathers of nestourianism theodore of mopsuista and Ibas and established the concept of Roman church catholic domination and the - so called - catholic rights of the see of saint peter in dominating the world , what EXACTLY the greek reaction from this person ? remembering that he was accused of killing 31 thousand coptic in one day in 451 after the chalcedonian council which denied the Cyrillian terminology through accepting the Tome of Leo .

3) in the shadow of the Christological and terminological FULL UNITY between alexandria and greece ... believing in one nature incarnated from two natured and one will for one Hypostasis ... Catholic christology is still against these concepts ... does that mean that there is a gap between the greek and roman christologies ?

please some one answers me because I want really to know to what extent we are in full communion through one faith ... Cyrillian .

thanks and pray for unity with catholics and others .... thanks in advance

yours in Christ
Mina Monir

[suzanne kallil mcphee]

Thank you all for that information..our lecturer at Uni wanted us to debate this issue from both sides..now I can,
God bless

[John King]

Dear Suzanne,

In my limited understanding, the Filioque implies a diarchy. If the Son as well as the Father is an Arche then there would be two separate principles in the Trinity, some "semi-Sabellian monster" as St Photius puts it. (Sabellius, as you may know, was a second-century heretic who rejected the Trinity altogether).

[John King]

Dear Suzanne,

I forgot to mention something that you could also bring up in your college debate, re the Vatican's position on the Filioque.

In 2002 the then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XV1 of course) wrote a paper entitled Dominus Iesus which can be found at:-

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

look carefully at the 'profession of faith' in paragraph one, and you will see the Orthodox Creed. When asked about this by a theologian, he said he was translating from the original Greek.

So, "Pope acknowledges Orthodox Creed as original and genuine. Discuss"

[John Charmley]

Dear Mr. King,

An interesting quotation, and of course Pope Benedict is translating accurately from the original! Everything here seems to depend on how one reads 'procession' and 'through', and I know that somewhere here there is an excellent post by Matthew Steenberg on this issue showing how it is not, if one understands it in correct Orthodox fashion, incorrect to use the filioque - but despite searching I cannot locate it, but hope he, or another poster, will do so; it is excellent reading.

It helps us to understand how the following list of the Fathers can all be found using the filioque' which, properly used, has, as these quotations show, a long history.

Tertullian
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).

Origen
"We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).


Maximus the Confessor
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).


Gregory the Wonderworker
"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).


Hilary of Poitiers
"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not grasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him" (ibid., 12:56).


Didymus the Blind
"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).


Epiphanius of Salamis
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).


Basil The Great
"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).


Ambrose of Milan
"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120).

Gregory of Nyssa
"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).


The Athanasian Creed
"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).


St. Cyril of Alexandria
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).

"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

Sometimes some of these are cited by polemicists to show that the Church has always taught the filioque, but properly understood in an Orthodox sense that is not to be taken as a double procession. But, as I say, Matthew Steenberg has made an excellent contribution on this, to which a link would be most useful

In Christ,

John

[Kusanagi]

Hi, I'm new to this board and know very little about Orthodoxy, one of the things I do know is that filoque is one of the biggest issues that seperates our churches. I was wondering what the Orthodox objection to "and the son" is. I know some don't like it because it wasn't in the original creed, but I'm more curious to the theological objections to it. Any comments would be helpful.

St Photios the Great and Patriarch of Constantinople says in his book the mystagogy of the Holy Spirit that if the spirit proceeds from the Son as well that would make the Son the Father as well.
Only the father can have the Spirit proceeding Him as that makes Him the Father.
Otherwise there will be two Fathers, which i believe will create conflicts.

[Ken McRae]

Bishop Kallistos Ware has recently researched this topic further and has understood this same thing.

Just came upon the following excerpt and so thought it might be useful to post it here:-

Augustine and the “Two Gregories” on the Origin of the Holy Spirit (http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.wareaugustinegregories.html)

In an effort to bridge the gulf with the west, Gregory of Cyprus, Patriarch of Constantinople (1283-9), followed by St. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), maintained that not only is the Spirit sent by the Son into the world but there is also, within the inner life of the Trinity, an “eternal manifestation” (aïdios ekphansis) of the Spirit by the Son. In this sense of “eternal manifestation”, so they argued, the Spirit may correctly be said to proceed “through” (dia) or even “from” (ek) the Son. But the two Gregories were careful to distinguish this “manifestation” from “procession” in the strict sense. “Manifestation”, as they understood it, did not signify a relationship of hypostatic origin: so far as the origin of the Spirit was concerned, they agreed with Photius that He proceeds from the Father alone.

Between the Trinitarian doctrine of the two Gregories and that of the west there is perhaps no basic contradiction, so long as the western teaching is presented in its more ancient form, as expounded, for example, by Augustine. According to Augustine, the Spirit proceeds “principally” (principaliter) from the Father, and from the Son only in a secondary and derivative sense. Is this “secondary and derivative sense” of procession wholly different from the “eternal manifestation” accepted by the two Gergories? In Augustine’s teaching the “monarchy” of the Father is still preserved, since the Father remains the only ultimate “source” and arche of the Godhead. There is a considerable difference between this earlier western view and the later Scholastic doctrine, as upheld by the west at [the councils of] Lyons and Florence, whereby the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son “as from one principle”, tanquam ex (or ab) uno principio.

This Scholastic theory, in contrast to that of Augustine, no longer affirms a personal principle of unity in the Godhead; the source of unity is now the divine essence, and the Cappadocian notion of the Father’s “monarchy” is abandoned. The difference in teaching between Augustine and the Scholastics is probably greater than that between Augustine and the Cappadocians. If we take as our standard of western Trinitarian teaching, not Lyons and Florence, but Augustine’s work On the Trinity, then it is far easier to treat the filioque question as a matter of alternative theologoumena and not a dogmatic conflict. (From “Christian Theology in the East,” in A History of Christian Doctrine, edited by Hubert Cunliffe-Jones [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980], p. 210)



Maximus the Confessor
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).

St Maximos Confessor's Letter to Marinus on the Roman Filioque (http://www.geocities.com/athens/atrium/8410/maxfilioque.html)

"Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

"The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession--but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

"They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).

"In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do." ( Saint Maximos' Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136. )

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity document, 'The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity,' clearly explains why the Latin-Greek communication was not working. Processio and ekporeusis did not mean the same thing. Processio is a general term in Latin theology, whereas ekporeusis refers to a specific kind of relationship in Greek theology. To people natively fluent in one language but not the other, this would not be readily apparent. St. Maximos understood that problem.




3 - A Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue on the Filioque (http://web.archive.org/web/20031204112815/http://ic.net/%7Eerasmus/RAZ251.HTM)

4 - To the Praise of His Glory (http://www.praiseofglory.com/)

Regrettably, these two links are now useless; and I'm unable to locate the "new" home for the material formally posted there. Oh well, that's just one of the downsides of the Internet, I suppose. It should be a standard (or required) practice to provide redirection links, when such material is either relocated, or removed from the web.

[Kosta]

St. Photius the Great is the bulwark of Orthodoxy on the fillioque. The term procession in the creed signifies of whom the hypostasis eternally originates from. "Who proceeds from the Father". If the Latin church believes that this word isnt teaching anything about the uncreated hypodtasis of the Spirit as it relates to its origin from the Father alone , then they have been reading the creed with a wrong mindset all along.
Its an insult to everyones intelligience to argue that the fillioque phrase in latin actually translates as "Who proceeds from the Father and proceeds to a lesser extant from the Son".
The word "proceed" is only used once and can only have the same meaning in both instances, otherwise the sentence structure makes no sense. If proceed means one thing for the Father and is meant to refer to another thing for the Son, then the fillique addition does not take into account proper syntax and proper structuring of a sentence in a way that it can actually make sense.

The argument that the Orthodox reject the Fillioque because it was introduced into the creed without the approval of a council is the argument of ecumenists. It is because it conveys heretical thought that it was rejected. If it conveyed right belief then the east would not of argued over its insertion into the creed.

[Paul C.]

Hi, I'm new to this board and know very little about Orthodoxy, one of the things I do know is that filoque is one of the biggest issues that seperates our churches. I was wondering what the Orthodox objection to "and the son" is. I know some don't like it because it wasn't in the original creed, but I'm more curious to the theological objections to it. Any comments would be helpful.Hello James:
I hope my pittance of info is of help. In (John 16:7), we learn that Jesus Christ Himself tells us that the Holy Spirit can only come to comfort His followers after He departs from the world. So if the Holy Spirit proceeded from Jesus why would He need to be absent for the Holy Spirit to be present?

The answering reason I read somewhere, is that had Jesus remained on earth, the Holy Spirit would abide fully in Him as He is the most perfect temple in which the Holy Spirit can dwell. So by leaving this world, Jesus Christ opened a way for human beings to reach a level of cleanliness that makes it possible for the Holy Spirit to dwell in them. And since none of us even approaches the perfection of Christ, many members of humanity can share in a portion of the Holy Spirit's in-dwelling whereas, if Jesus were still on earth, the Holy Spirit would only dwell in Him due to His perfection as a suitable temple in which the Holy Spirit can dwell.

So: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son.

That's all I can offer in answer to your worthy question.
Paul

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Hi, I'm new to this board and know very little about Orthodoxy, one of the things I do know is that filoque is one of the biggest issues that seperates our churches. I was wondering what the Orthodox objection to "and the son" is. I know some don't like it because it wasn't in the original creed, but I'm more curious to the theological objections to it. Any comments would be helpful.

Well, as to the insertion itself of the clause into the Creed, the objections should be obvious. The First Council of Ephesus (431) canonically condemned proposing any other faith (creed) than the one confirmed at that council, which happened to have been the Creed proposed at the First Council of Constantinople (381). On this level, we in the EOC have tended to view the clause as a violation of the First Council of Ephesus. Secondly, there was a council in 879 called the Fourth Council of Constantinople (a council which the Byzantines and even the Romans recognized as the Eighth Ecumenical Council in the first few hundred years following it) which was concerned mainly with this issue, and it explicitly condemned any additions, subtractions, or edits of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed what-so-ever. Rome happened to conveniently switch the identity of the Eighth Ecumenical Council to rather one that occurred in 869 because they realized that holding to the 879 council while reciting the creed with the clause was entirely inconsistent and hypocritical.

The theology behind the Creed is a little more complicated of an issue, however. To my understanding, there were two Greek words in the Patristic era to refer to procession, those being ἐκπορεύεσθαι and προιέναι. The former appears to have been referring to "procession" in terms of ontology, individuation, manifestation, initial causation, etc. Whereas, the latter verb appears to have been referring to missioning, sending forth, and not causation. Many of the Latin Fathers and even some of the Greek Fathers spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son in the sense of the latter word. At a certain point, the formula "from the Father through the Son" was developed to reflect this.

Now, the Greek Creed proposed at the First Council of Constantinople used the former word for proceed. In this context, the EO viewed it as only acceptable to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as to suggest otherwise would compromise the monarchy of the Father, a well established Apostolic/Patristic doctrine. Unfortunately, the Latin translation of the Creed happens to have used the verb procedit when speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which corresponds more to προιέναι than it does to ἐκπορεύεσθαι. In this context, it's entirely possible that the early advocates of the filioque were simply repeating what the Church Fathers have already established, that with respect to προιέναι, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son. If this is all that was meant by it, the filioque was not inherently heretical, but simply rather in violation with the Patristic order of not editing the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Now, given the Greek word used in the Creed, I'm sure you can understand why the Byzantine part of the Church characterized the filioque clause as heretical, because it was not clear to us that it was not a reference to the causation of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, the development of the filioque did not end there. Eventually Rome started developing a theology behind more and more clearly suggesting that the Holy Spirit was caused by both the Father and the Son, and in doing so confounding more and more the theology of the Trinity. They began to speak of the Holy Spirit being "the love between the Father and the Son". And also that because the "Father gives everything that is His own to the Son" that the Spirit must thus proceed also from the Son. And finally we get the formula "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle". All these later developments are clearly heretical to us and violate the monarchy of the Father and even our understanding of the nature of the Trinity.

I hope that explanation wasn't too long and it gave you a grasp of the core issues in the historical debate.

In Christ,
Cyril