Medieval debate over 'Filioque'

[Martin Paul]

During the debate over the Filioque did an individual Greek theologian ever reject that the Spririt proceeds through the Son? I cannot imagine so. But just checking.

Thanks,
martin

[Michael Astley]

I'm not sure, to be honest, but as I have come to understand it, yes, the Holy Spirit can indeed be said to proceed through the Son as part of their actions within creation. However, the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit - what he actually is as opposed to what he has done in creation in time - proceeds from the Father. Full stop.

As you've started the thread, I hope you don't mind me piggy-backing on it to ask another filioque-related question.

I have been involved in a discussion in the past where a very convincing argument was made that there is no issue of division at all between the Orthodox and Latin understandings of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, and I wondered what folk here thought.

As it was put forward, the situation is this:

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ontological sense of "has his being from". This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed).

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act in creation, in time, the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son but only in the sense of a temporal going forth.

The argument that was put forward was that the Latins, when they say in the Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, actually mean the second sense of a simple temporal "going forth" in time and not the eternal procession of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.

The problem is that while the two meanings are covered by the same word in both Latin and English, in Greek, this is a completely different verb: proeinai. Therefore, when the Orthodox look at the Latin addition, this looks like blatant heresy, for the Holy Spirit does not eternally proceed from the Father and the Son, but from the Father alone. If what I have been told is correct, then the Latins would agree with this, and would say that they don't actually claim anything different.

They would offer as support of this the fact that their churches of the Byzantine Rite, many of which serve the liturgy in Greek, do not use the filioque, because the filioque, if used with the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, would be heresy.

If this is true, if it is actually the case that the issue is simply one of translation and semantics, then we actually believe the same thing about the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, and the charge against the Latins ceases to be that they hold heretical beliefs about the eternal procession of the Third Person of the Trinity, and it becomes that they have changed the sense of the Creed without the authority to do so, which is still wrong, but is a lesser charge, as far as I can tell.

I do not place any value judgments on this theory. I'm just saying that it sounds rather sensible to me and I would like to read what others more knowledgeable than I actually think of this.

Is it all a load of codswallop that has been made up to paper over the cracks or is there actually some truth in it?

Many thanks.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I believe that several noted Orthodox theologians have said that the idea of "through the Son" is not outside of Orthodoxy. HOWEVER, although some Catholic apologists espouse this as a POSSIBLE interpretation, it is certainly not the ONLY interpretation (merely the only one acceptable to Orthodoxy). Since there are other possible interpretations, an entire theology of DUAL PROCESSION exists within many parts of the Catholic Church and this idea is totally unacceptable to Orthodoxy.

I believe Orthodoxy's biggest argument against the addition is twofold:

1. It was good enough as is, why mess with it. Even the RCC acknowledges the term as "optional". Doesn't "optional" mean not essential? Why have things that are not essential in the essential Symbol of the Faith?

2. It was added unilaterally and NOT with the mind of the WHOLE Church. The mere fact that the Orthodox Churches have not accepted it, and it was added in a non-concilliar manner, makes it unacceptable.

[Martin Paul]

It seems that most Eastern Fathers wrote that the Spirit does proceed through the Son. I am asking the question about the medieval theologians because if some did teach that the Spirit does not proceed through the Son this would amount to complete rejection of the whole tradition. Some Eastern Fathers even wrote that He proceeds FROM the Son. But I'm not quite sure how this is to be understood. It seems that His Essence is what is the subject in most quotes. I wonder if the Latins first meant the filioque in this sense. This would be orthodox. And not until later was it taught that His Person proceeds from the Son "JUST AS" He proceeds from the Father as "one and the same Principle." Its just this interpretation of the phrase that is heretical. Hmm.

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]).

"He is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son, seeing that He is poured forth in a way of essence FROM BOTHor in other words, from the Father through the Son."
Cyril of Alexandria,Worship and Adoration,1(A.D. 429),in SW,269

"For He, as been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word." Athanasius,Against the Arians,III:24(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:407

"[N]either does any know the Spirit but the Father and the Son, the PERSONS FROM whom he proceedsand from whom He receives."
Epiphanius,The Man Well-Anchored,11(A.D. 374),in SW,227

"God ... is Life, the Son Life from Life, and the Holy Spirit FLOWS FROM BOTH; the Father is Light, the Son is Light, the Holy Spirit the third from Father and Son."
Epiphanius,The Man Well-Anchored,70(A.D. 374),in SW,227

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes forth from the Father AND THE SON..." Epiphanius,The Man Well-Anchored,75(A.D. 374),in JUR,II:69

"Even if the Holy Spirit is third in diginity and order, why need he be third also in nature? For that he is second to the Son, having his being FROM him and receiving from him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on him, pious tradition recounts; but that his nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said." Basil, Against Eunomius,3, PG 29:653B(A.D. 365),in HS,44

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]).

orthomartin

[Olga]

With my rudimentary understanding of the dynamics of the Holy Trinity, if the Holy Spirit was to proceed equally from the Son as it does from the Father, as opposed to through the Son (which is quite satisfactory in Orthodox thought), then there would be two sources of Godhead, not one. The former position unbalances the dynamics of the Trinity, and diminishes the importance and "status" of the Holy Spirit. I am happy to be corrected on this.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

With my rudimentary understanding of the dynamics of the Holy Trinity, if the Holy Spirit was to proceed equally from the Son as it does from the Father, as opposed to through the Son (which is quite satisfactory in Orthodox thought), then there would be two sources of Godhead, not one. The former position unbalances the dynamics of the Trinity, and diminishes the importance and "status" of the Holy Spirit. I am happy to be corrected on this.

I think this is nicely put. To claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is to identify the personal operations of the Father with the essential activity of the Holy Trinity. As St Photios points out when this is done then a whole set of inner contradictions are set up within the Holy Trinity since all three Persons are one in essence.

If the Son and Holy Spirit could proceed from the Father because they are one in essence then absurdly the Son could proceed from the Holy Spirit or alternatively any of the persons could proceed from each other in an endless chain.

In Orthodox Trinitarian theology we begin with the priority of Persons & not essence. Otherwise we end up making the Persons into expressions of the essence. Which is a very serious mistake.

In Christ- Fr Raphael