Bede and filioque

[Andreas Moran]

I wonder if anyone has noticed that in Bede's Ecclesiatical History, Book 4 Chapter 17, in his account of the Synod of Hatfield in 680AD, St Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, in a synodical letter from which Bede quotes, says, ' . . . and the Holy Spirit ineffably proceeding from the Father and the Son'. In the Penguin Classics edition, this is on p.233, fourth line from the bottom. This seems a very early use of the 'filioque', and I wonder whether it is accurate, or whether 'and the Son' was an much later interpolation? Anyone any ideas? I'm only thinking that if it is thought to be original, it might say something about the Orthodoxy of the pre-Schism Church in Britain.

[John Charmley]

Dear Andreas,

There is a view that this is a later interpollation. I shall go back to my notes and check the sources.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Thank you, John - I suspected it might be, but it would be reassuring to know.

[John Charmley]

Dear Andreas,

My own notes were inconclusive, so I went to two colleagues, one of whom teaches Bede and the other of whom is a distinguished ecclesiastical historian, and from the latter I have this:

My assumption is that the clause entered western Europe after
the 380s and that there is nothing odd about finding it in Bede, of
which, as I seem to remember, the earliest manuscripts used by Colgrave
et al are very early (yes - have now checked this: both the Moore
manuscript in CUL and the Leningrad manuscript are before 750).

The other colleague responded:

Bede was copying the terms of Hatfield from a Canterbury source

That certainly matched what I had in my own notes, although there is a seventeenth century source which thinks it may be an interpolation. But if the Leningrad MSS. has the filioque, then that would seem to me conclusive - as far as one can be on this.

Of course, at the period Bede was writing, this issue had not become the hot issue which it became later, and Theodore may well have meant it in the sense in which it can be acceptable.

I shall dig around a little more, but perhaps with your Russian contacts you might be able to confirm the Leningrad text?

In Christ.

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Over the years I have come across references to the filioque from different Fathers in the west whom we would definitely consider Orthodox in their theological understanding.

So today out of curiosity I looked through the doctrinal index of a collection of Patristic writings I have under the heading, "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (a Patre filoque)".

Following from this index I have found a suggestive reference to the filioque in Tertullian and clear references in St Hilary and St Ambrose and of course St Augustine. It becomes clear then that St Augustine is not the initiator of the filioque in the west as he is often described even though he gave it more emphasis than it had previously.

In any case I only bring this up because this a subject which needs a lot more serious work than we as Orthodox have given it so far.

I wonder if there is some acceptable interpretation held in the early west that is not "proceeds only by economy from the Son". What is clear from all the Patristic quotes from the index is that the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son is being demonstrated.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Indeed it is plain
the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son is being demonstrated.

The idea that the Spirit came forth “from the Father through the Son” is asserted by Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers and St. Ambrose, but not, I think, in the way the Latin Church later came to understand it.

Tertullian, writing at the start of the third century (Adversus Praxean 4 and 5) emphasizes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and power (ibid. 2), which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted by the Son to the Spirit (ibid. 8).

Hilary of Poitiers, in the mid-fourth century, speaks of the Spirit as ‘coming forth from the Father’ and being ‘sent by the Son’ (De Trinitate 12.55); as being ‘from the Father through the Son’ (ibid. 12.56); and as ‘having the Father and the Son as his source’ (ibid. 2.29); in another passage he points to John 16:15 (where Jesus says: “All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that [the Spirit] shall take from what is mine and declare it to you”), and wonders aloud whether “to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father” (ibid. 8.20).

St. Ambrose, in the 380s, writes that the Spirit “proceeds from (procedit a) the Father and the Son,” without ever being separated from either (On the Holy Spirit 1.11.20). But what they all have in common is an emphasis on the equality of status of the three divine persons as God; all see the Father alone as the source. In other words they are combatting the popular heresy of the time, not making a statement of the double procession; still less a statement about the internal workings of the Trinity.

The basis of this statement seems to have been the so-called Athanasian Creed, which was thought in the west to have come from Alexandria (where it was actually unknown), which is cited by Caesarius of Arles (who died c. 542), and which relied heavily on St. Augustine's writings. It was popular because of its association with St. Athanasius and was used as an anti-Arian weapon. By speaking of the Spirit as proceeding 'from the Father and the Son', it established that the Son was not inferior to the Father in substance, as the Arians held.

The circumstance of the eighth century, when the issue became a live one between the Carolingians and Constantinople, were quite different. It was the Libri Carolini (791-794) which argued that the Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, and therefore reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; rejecting the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. From that, of course, much evil followed - unless one can take Celinda's more optimistic view expressed elsewhere on this site.

As ever, I stand open to correction, basing much of what is above on the advice of my colleague, who is knowledgeable on this one - but unlike the head of his Church in such matters, not infallible.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Fr Raphael, Dear John,

Thank you for going to so much trouble over this. Well, the filioque just won't go away, will it? So far as I've thought about it at all, I have thought that if it were taken to mean that the Son sends the Holy Spirit, as He said He does, there isn't a problem. But if someone says the filioque, how can you know what they mean by it? So better, I'd have thought, not to say it. If you don't fiddle about with the Creed, you're safe. If we knew that St Theodore and Bede et al didn't mean by it what the RC meant by it after Charlemagne, then okay. A dear friend of mine, a retired Royal Navy chaplain, and still an Anglican priest (though you can't get a *** paper between him and Orthodoxy) refuses to say the filioque and encourages others to do the same.

I'll ask Lydia if she can explore the Russian MS - do we not now call it the St Petersburg MS? Which library is it in?

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Reading over different quotes from several western Fathers it seems quite clear that the filioque was a tradition in the west by the 4th century. I don't mean dogmatically proclaimed but rather commonly referred to and without being attacked as a deviation.

To take only one typical example. St Hilary of Poitiers (315- 367/68) in his The Trinity writes: "Concerning the Holy Spirit, however, I ought not remain silent, nor yet is it necessary to speak. Still, on account of those who do not know Him, it is not possible for me to be silent. However, it is not necessary to speak of Him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, His Sources." [emphasis added by me].

That this is a typical emphasis on the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son is shown by St Hilary's words following, "I think, however, that the reason why some remain in ignorance or doubt...is that they see this third name, that by which the Holy Spirit is named, applied frequently also to the Father and to the Son. But there need be no objection to this, for both Father and Son are spirit and holy." Similar arguments are to be found throughout the work.

Of course one can argue from the negative that since nothing more explicit is said about the filioque than the above then nothing definitive is really shown. This however isn't really allowing the words to speak which one is reading but rather imposing one's own hopeful interpretation on what one reads. It shows more openness to the Fathers to simply allow them to speak and allow the challenges this involves. This is especially so when as in this situation we can easily show from the evidence that indeed a filioque tradition did exist in the west for many centuries before it was attacked by us as a doctrinal deviation.

By the way I'm not referring to any of the posts here, but only to a tendency I notice among us Orthodox in general to try to explain things by polishing every rough edge.

In any case the question is why were these expressions of the filioque allowed to pass for so long by the east and then from the 9th century become such a central issue of contention?

The most well known arguments are that the east simply didn't know the Latin Fathers & traditions in earlier times; and that the Photian dispute was caused by the conflicts caused by the first active contacts between eastern and western missionaries in central Europe.

These arguments are countered however by the fact that when the eastern Fathers did become more familiar with early western expressions of the filioque they justified them in different ways.

Meanwhile the background to the Photian disputes are more examples of the growing divide between east & west rather than explanations in themselves of what lay behind this growing divide. To just point to the disputes explains little.

This whole topic justifies a very long and involved investigation. But to cut to the chase I would like to say briefly what I think the difference was between let's say the 4thc and the 10thc in how the east saw western expressions of the filioque.

I would say that for the eastern fathers if or when they came across earlier expressions of the filioque they would have recognized these to be at variance with the common expressions they were used to. But this wouldn't have caused a major problem since they would have recognized that the fundamental point of let's say St Hilary's work on The Trinity was the same.

On the other hand though by the time of St Photios we see that different expressions about the Trinity are being seen in the east as signs of a growing theological deviation. The west's past isn't being reinterpreted but rather its present. As St Photios says, the Latins, "had lost the Apostolic mind (phronima) which alone explains their fall."

In other words the east isn't just reading the words at face value and saying something is expressed incorrectly. Rather what is happening is that the east is interpreting the intent behind the words and finding in these words signs of an increasing theological & spiritual deviation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Andreas, Dear Fr. Raphael,

The manuscript is in the National Library of Russia, (lat. Q. v. I. 18).

I think that you are correct, Father, in your reading. This is one of those cases where historical context matters.

Theodore was a surprise choice for Canterbury, and many thought Pope Vitalian should have chosen Hadrian, who accompanied Theodore to England. There were rumours concerning his orthodoxy, and it would seem that he chose to use the so-called Athanasian creed to put an end to any doubts. As you say
this wouldn't have caused a major problem since they would have recognized that the fundamental point of let's say St Hilary's work on The Trinity was the same. Indeed, one can go further and say that they would have recognised that an anti-Arian statement was being made, and it was one with which they would have agreed.

Later, the circumstances were quite different, and the use to which the Carolingians put the filioque did not seem at all Orthodox in the East (as it still does not). But, on the point Andreas first mentioned, it seems that the consensus is that the reference is genuine, but that it was not taken to mean what it later came to represent. It has to be read against the backcloth of the Arian controversy.

I hope that helps us along a little.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Further as from my thoughts above that there was a separate filiqoue tradition in the west.

In my recent reading from St Justin Martyr there is the following.


The Spirit and the Power from God cannot be rightly thought of as anything else than the Word, who is also the First-born of God...

This is only tentative- but could we see here the roots of what became a separate filioque tradition in the west?

At this early stage of the Church we certainly cannot expect a clear expression of distinct hypostases from St Justin. As with the rest of the Church at this time the language & understanding of the distinction between the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is not clarified. The Holy Spirit is a divine power or dynamis of God; the Holy Spirit is also distinct in some sense. But little is explained beyond this as with the rest of the Church at this time.

The conjunction of the Word and Holy Spirit in the above way though also points out that at this point the main focus of the Church in terms of the Holy Trinity was on the divine economy. Perhaps this explains the insistence of the Church from the most ancient times that baptisms be accomplished in the name of all three Persons of the Trinity. Considering the vague state of Trinitarian theology at this time such an open expression concerning the Three Persons may be seem surprising until the emphasis of the early Church on the common economy of the Trinity is understood.

This also connects to the very early witness of the Church which we still see in St Justin that the revelation of the Trinity fulfills the Judaic understanding of God & indeed in some sense supplants it. Thus the emphasis at this time on the Holy Spirit as prophetically revealing through the Church this new economy of God. It is the Holy Spirit Who led the prophets to foreshadow Christ in word & deed. But most especially it is the Holy Spirit Who leads the Church to understand the real meaning of the prophets that in Christ the New Israel fulfills the Old.

Is it the ancient linking of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the divine economy concerning the Church which is one of the roots of what later in the west became the filioque? At this point this had more to do with the Church's understanding of its relationship to the Old Israel & then to the pagan world in which it sought to witness. But it could be that later on the original emphasis on the commonality of the Word and the Holy Spirit as an aspect of the Divine economy was refocussed onto Trinitarian issues.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kusanagi]

in the book Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St Photios he says many of the saints from pre-schism west of europe used the filoque without giving it much indepth theological thought and just included it thinking it is ok, he gave examples of St Gregory of Nyssa, St Ambrose and St Augustine.

[David Hatch]

Hello everyone. This is my first post so I beg your pardon as I get accustomed to the forum.

I have "Anglican" as my religion for lack of a better option. I currently attend an Anglo-Catholic Church with my wife and children. I realize the need for being in a truly Apostolic church. I had in years past studied Orthodoxy rigorously and nearly converted (from Evangelicalism at the time - though raised Roman Catholic). My wife was raised Greek Orthodox. For various reasons we did not join the Orthodox Church (or rejoin in my wife's case). At any rate in more recent times I have pretty much reconciled with Rome and concluded that she is the Church and I set my mind to re-enter but have not because it is hard to take my children from a beautiful liturgy and a wonderful Christian community. Anway, I have been having the old Orthodox stirrings lately so I made my way here. This thread has greatly surprised me to say the least. I am not used to such candidness from Orthodox folks on this issue. From what I have read it seems that, from an Orthodox perspective, based in the information in this thread anyway, the filioque should not be a reason for division. I say that while agreeing that the original Creed works just fine and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But it got me thinking, that if the only issue were the filioque, is the division really justified given Rome's willingness to define it in such terms as the Father's quoted in this thread likely did? I know there are other issues, but the more I study the more I, respectfully, think the filioque was not so much itself a point of division as much as the boldness of altering the Creed which I can completely understand. But it does seem St. Photios had more of problem with it than St. Maximos did earlier on. I wonder if grudges on both sides made the issues bigger than it really is in later centuries? Also, as indicated there seems to have been misunderstandings as some easterners were not aware of the earlier use. And even today the definition is often misunderstood or complicated because of the whole Greek vs. Latin language/eternal procession thing.

So I guess my question is, if the filioque were the only issue do you think reunion would be possible? Also do you as Orthodox think some Orthodox make to much of the filioque issue?

Thank you,

Dave

[Kosta]

Many today try to attempt to justify the fillioque; that it is not heretical but caused division because it was inserted into the Creed unilaterally.

Personally i dont accept this new theory. Reading St Photius, i have to conclude that if the fillioque was NOT heretical, there would have been no problem with its insertion unilaterally.

The same occured in Constntinople in 381 a.d, when that council (never intended to be ecumenical to begin with), added onto the Creed and made other minor revisions to the original formulated in Nicea. No one was up in arms because the additions were not heretical in anyway.

[Yuri Zharikov]

Many today try to attempt to justify the fillioque; that it is not heretical but caused division because it was inserted into the Creed unilaterally.

Personally i dont accept this new theory. Reading St Photius, i have to conclude that if the fillioque was NOT heretical, there would have been no problem with its insertion unilaterally.

The same occured in Constntinople in 381 a.d, when that council (never intended to be ecumenical to begin with), added onto the Creed and made other minor revisions to the original formulated in Nicea. No one was up in arms because the additions were not heretical in anyway.

I just would like to note that at the Council of Florence the issues of addition to the Creed and filioque were considered separately. It was after the Orthodox would not yield to a unilateral right to add anything to the Creed that the Romans offered to examine theology itself and accept filioque if it was correct theologically. Then St. Mark's defence of Orthodoxy followed (he did not apear to be aware of any ancient use of filioque in the West), where he formulated the differences between procession as the essential property of the Holy Spirit and Him being sent by the Lord in time. Latins would not yield and to bring the parties to an agreement on the issue they (Latin representatives) formulated a mind-boggling formula, which I quote from Ostroumoff's Council of Florence:

They proposed, that both parties should explain their doctrine in the following form: “We Greeks do proclaim that, though we admit the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father, still we do not deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds and receives from the Son, as from the Father; but forasmuch as we have heard that the Latins avow the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, as from two principles, for this very reason have we avoided this expression. But we Latins do affirm that, though we avow the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, still we do not deny that the Father is the source and origin of all Divinity, i.e., the Son and the Holy Ghost; in like manner, avowing the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, we do not deny that the Son has this from the Father, and do not admit two principles or two proceedings of the Holy Ghost, but one origin and one procession.”

The formula was initially rejected... well you probably know the rest of the story.

Yura

[Nina]

And even today the definition is often misunderstood or complicated because of the whole Greek vs. Latin language/eternal procession thing.

Knowing fluently Greek and Latin was an academic requirement of the era. The Orthodox Fathers about whom we are talking not only were very intelligent people, and very well learned, and polyglots, but in addition and most importantly they possessed the highest form of wisdom. The wisdom of God (Sophia tou Theou).

Even the Fathers who were not educated in secular wisdom, but who possessed the wisdom of God were enlightened, they were vessels of the Holy Spirit. For example Saint Spyridon (we celebrate him now in December) who stunned Arius and his followers with his knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the miracle he performed in the Council. A person who has first hand knowledge of God, of the Uncreated Light, knows much more than human knowledge ever encompassed; that person knows and speaks that language that does not need parables to be understood. That person speaks the divine language. If I remember it correctly, it was Cabasilas who said that Christ, when He spoke to us, had to use parables so we could understand divine language, otherwise we would not be enlightened enough to grasp it. Although in my opinion even with the parables Christ gave us, the ones like I, have a difficult time understanding and comprehending fully the Bible - therefore the divine eikonomia provided us with the Holy Fathers who interpreted sayings of Christ and parables. The Holy Fathers interpret and explain the divine language. For instance, if we read Saint John Damaskinos (if I am not mistaken) he explains the Prayer "Our Father...". In the verse: "Give us this day our daily bread" in Greek "Ton arton imon ton epiousion" the word epiousion means three different things, not according to the language of the text - New Testament Greek, not according to the languages that St. Damaskinos knew, but according the the divine language he knew so well because he like all the Orthodox Fathers was a vessel of the Holy Spirit.

So if we speak about Orthodox Fathers and languages, or their linguistic formation and authority, how about asking if they meet the most important criteria? If they speak the divine language? When they have such a gift there is no language barrier they can not transcend. Because there is no human language barrier for the Holy Spirit, and as we know from the NT, the Holy Spirit gifted the Apostles and Disciples with the gift of glossolalia.
Filioque is not semantic misunderstanding.


Also do you as Orthodox think some Orthodox make to much of the filioque issue?
DaveNo.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dave wrote:


So I guess my question is, if the filioque were the only issue do you think reunion would be possible? Also do you as Orthodox think some Orthodox make to much of the filioque issue?


First off I need to say that the filioque still is a very important issue between us. This is so because of how it is a theological issue in itself. Also because of how it represents other theological issues which divide us such as how we see the Mother of God, the saints, the liturgical tradition and piety. On the outside from the side of language or the words we use it may seem like we are on the same page on these issues. But in meaning we are still too far apart.

Recently we have seen movement towards something more traditional from Roman Catholicism. Some of this is something which we can recognize as traditional by Orthodox standards; eg more sobriety within the liturgical life of the Church. Other things however could be a return to more traditional Roman Catholic standards which of course we would have trouble with.

All in all I would say that on the ground level where most of the ultimate direction of the Orthodox Church arises from it would take another century or so of real & conscious change from the western church in order for this to lead to real unity.

As for what actually divides us- I mean on the parish and parish priest level- I think this is only now just beginning to be understood. Formal expressions of theology and even piety are only the tip of the iceberg. What is at issue is actually our respective sense of what life in the Church consists of, not just on the verbal level but rather on that deeper lived level of what life in the Church means for us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

In my meagre opinion, the filioque is a symptom rather than a cause of the division. The real reason for division continues to be the fact that the Orthodox Church cannot accept the definition of authority as put forth by the office of the Vatican. It is difficult for this simple mind to say if this definition caused the filioque or was caused by it. One fairly reasonable argument is that the filioque demeans the role of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity. A "weak" Holy Spirit might require a "strong" Vicar of Christ on earth. Orthodoxy, in rejecting the filioque, sees the Holy Spirit as an equal participant in the Trinity, strong in the role of directing the Church, making a supreme "vicar of Christ" unnecessary. If the Pope or, more historically and significantly, the office of the Vatican, were to accept a more "Orthodox" definition of authority, and reject the many unilateral additions to the Apostolic Witness that the Catholic Church has accreted over the years, we would be much closer to each other than we are at present. This is only my own simple opinion from a bear of very little brain, and I gladly acquiese to better minds than mine on the subject.

Herman the Pooh

[Seda S.]

I’d like just to add some additional information on the use of filioque in the writings of ancient Fathers. Not only would the western Fathers use it, but even the Eastern Fathers. Now I can recall only St Epiphanius of Cyprus. I read about this first in the History of the Church by Posnov, but later I found in a Classical Armenian text large quotations from St Epiphanius on this matter. Since the Armenians do not themselves accept the filioque, so I cannot think that they have corrupted the original text of Epiphanius.

This is just a piece of information, nothing more.

With love,

Seda

[RichardWorthington]

In my meagre opinion, the filioque is a symptom rather than a cause of the division.

I totally agree with you. The phrase "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" can be equally either Orthodox or heretical, depending on how it is understood. St Maximos the Confessor did, I believe, defend Rome's use of it (outside of the creed).

The problem is that as God is beyond all our understanding any description of 'Him' can be misleading!

For example, the term ‘Spirit’ is used in numerous ways in scripture; it is a general term whose meaning changes from passage to passage, and even within the same statement: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me" (John 15:26). By the one "who proceeds from the Father" it is understood the Third Person of the Trinity, by "when the Helper comes" it is understood the uncreated presence of the undivided Trinity.

If the words of Christ above can be used to justify the 3rd Person coming from the other Two, then what about these words: "Send, O Christ, the Spirit, send the Father to my soul"?! (Synesius of Cyrene 4-5th century, in "The Orthodox Way", Bishop Kallistos Ware, 1993; page 42). Does the Father proceed from the Son?! Of course not! - what is meant is the presence of the undivided Trinity, the Presence which can be described by either all or one of the three Names.

Similarly, the doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer the "Our Father" in the Orthodox Liturgy ends "for Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" – thereby indicating that the "Father" to whom we pray is the entire undivided Trinity. The word ‘spirit’ can refer to both the presence of God and the Third Person, and the word ‘father’ can refer to both our Creator the Trinity and the First Person.

However, that the Western usage came to be heretical (from the Orthodox perspective) can be seen even today in modern teaching of the Trinity. I once heard someone say that in our experience of the Trinity, even though the three are always acting together, each Person is acting within us in a different manner. This is "Harmonious Tritheism"; the ascription of differing operations/functions/functionality/'energies' to the separate Persons of the Trinity.

This goes totally against the ancient and Orthodox position that "no difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead" (St Gregory of Nyssa, On "Not Three Gods").

So terminologically, the filioque is perfectly acceptable; however, observations show that it is being used to justify a division of the undivided Trinity.

Richard

[Yuri Zharikov]

I totally agree with you. The phrase "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" can be equally either Orthodox or heretical, depending on how it is understood. St Maximos the Confessor did, I believe, defend Rome's use of it (outside of the creed).

Richard

Again from Ostroumov's Council of Florence. According to the author, the Orthodox tried to use the witness of St. Maximus to explain to the Latins the difference in their present and traditional (Orthodox) belief about the procesion of the Spirit:

<...> But the Bishops, knowing well what double meaning lurked under the expressions used by John in the written exposition of the Latin doctrine, sought another, firmer foundation for peace. The attention of all was turned to the epistle of Maximus the Confessor, (seventh century) who in his time wrote in the following manner about the Roman Christians: — “Adducing the testimony of the Roman Fathers and of Cyril of Alexandria (from his exposition on the Gospel of John), the Romans do not affirm that the Son is the Cause of the Spirit, for they know that the Cause of the Son and of the Spirit is the Father of One by birth, and of the Other by procession; but only show that the Spirit is sent through the Son, and thereby express the affinity and the indifference of their essence.” The Greeks received this testimony of Maximus about the ancient Romans with great pleasure. (“If the Latins teach on the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost conformably with the testimony of Maximus,” said the Greek bishops, “then no further discussions are necessary, and the former union of Churches can take place.”
The Latins however would not agree with this. They wanted to have the last word, and demanded a continuation of the Council sittings. It was very reluctantly that the Emperor again appeared at the Council. In order not to recommence the disputes, he prohibited the re-appearance of the two combatants for Orthodoxy, — Mark of Ephesus and Anthony of Heraclea.

This passage I feel, makes it quite clear that when western fathers used filioque they did it, as many already suggested, with a fully Orthodox intend. The impression I got from reading Ostroumov's text that is was filioque that was the stambling block for the Latins, but that fact that Pope's authority would have been undermined, had they conceded to the Orthodox definition.

In the Lord,
Yura

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Richard wrote:



So terminologically, the filioque is perfectly acceptable; however, observations show that it is being used to justify a division of the undivided Trinity.


For the sake of clarity I personally think it is best to keep the expression 'filioque' to mean the tendency in the west to refer to two principles or sources within the Holy Trinity.

As many have said here- and I have also pointed this out myself before- the understanding that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son was heard of long before the filioque dispute although most often it was not expressed through the use of any developed formula.

But for the sake of clarity I think it most helpful to refer only to the former as involving the filioque. After all this is the Latin term and represents specifically what those like St Photios questioned. Also it helps clarify that we are not only speaking of a problem in terminology but also of theological meaning.

Otherwise we end up implying that we all actually were filioquists all along. But then why didn't St Photios recognize this? And why apparently didn't those who use the filioque also not recognize this?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosta]

The Fillioque within the Creed makes no sense, in the way the Latin church attempts to justify it to the Orthodox. They claim it means "through" Christ.

Thus the latin word "proceed" according to them better translates as, "The Lord the Giver of Life, Who is THROUGH the Father and the Son.

This is not what Tertullian taught, this is what he said: "I think of the Spirit as ONLY from the Father Through the Son".

In scripture it says that Christ proceeds from the Father (Jn 8.42) but this is a totally different word than what is used in John 15.26 concerning the Spirit. In the above Christ proceeds by using the greek word: "exerchomai" . Where as in Jn 15.26 the Spirit proceeds using the greek "ekporeuomao" The difference between "exo" meaning exit in general while "ek" adds the emphasis of origin, source, it also means the direction it sets off from and the direction it tends back towards.

It "may" be proper to claim the Spirit proceeds (exerchomai) from the Son but its improper to claim that the Spirit (ekporeuomai) from the Son. The latter suggests a double eternal procession and origin which would basically mean two different Holy Spirits' (which Paul battles against 1 Cor 12.11).

This is best explained by the Church Father Athenagoras of Athens in 177 a.d. who is probably the earliest church father to explain the trinity without any subordinationist tendency: "The Holy Spirit himself who operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God flowing from him and returning back again like a beam of light."

The Fillioque does not demonstrate the fact that the Hypostasis of the Father is the source of both the Son and the Spirit.
Orthodoxy teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone and is sent in time by the Son.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Kosta wrote:


The Fillioque does not demonstrate the fact that the Hypostasis of the Father is the source of both the Son and the Spirit.
Orthodoxy teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone and is sent in time by the Son.

It has always been my understanding, which other Orthodox writers also point out, that the filioque results from an abstract rather than a Personal way of seeing the Holy Trinity.

There is after all no way to understand (even if we can barely do so at that!) that the Holy Trinity is both One and distinct except by beginning with the Personal 'given' of each of the Divine Persons.

Begin with a human understanding of Divine unity and we will never understand their being distinct Persons.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

My sense of the issue is that the Church in time came to understand and recognize more clearly some of the problems associated with subordinationism, and so there came an effort to avoid it all costs. Most of pre-Nicean Christology was subordinationist in some sense. And so is it not the case that our rejection of filioque is simply an effort to avoid subordinationism of the Spirit, in the same way that we rejected Arianism and other forms of subordinationist Christology?

Regarding abstraction, I'm not convinced that's the key issue here. All theological language is inherently an abstraction, because we are not referring to objects. We are abstracting from experience. And I doubt any solid RC theologian would argue that his vision of the Trinity is anything other than "personal," although the term personal is fraught with its own inherent problems of meaning. We simply do not mean by personal the same thing as it is used by the ancient formulas. It means rather a mask or persona or manifestation. i.e. a particularity that is manifested in the unity. It all gets back to the question of what it means to be a human person. This is all we really have to go on. This is our starting point, as the Fathers understood. The problem is that we are all individuals. And yet we are all one. How do we explain that? How is that possible? What makes it possible? Trinitarian doctrine amply illuminates the human like no other, which is what makes it a superior doctrine. Of course, it is revealed to us, but we have to make sense of it through abstraction.

Forgive me but I always balk at what appears to me to be a simplistic effort to explain our God as personal, as if this is the QED of it. And I think this is largely due to Protestant influence in our outlook. Our doctrine of the Trinity is decidedly not based on personal relationships, in the same sense that the Protestants use this terminology, and I would like to one day find an Orthodox theologian who can explicate this problem and make the proper distinctions. Or maybe someone has whom I am unaware of.

[Father David Moser]

the term personal is fraught with its own inherent problems of meaning. We simply do not mean by personal the same thing as it is used by the ancient formulas. ... Trinitarian doctrine amply illuminates the human like no other, which is what makes it a superior doctrine. ... Our doctrine of the Trinity is decidedly not based on personal relationships, in the same sense that the Protestants use this terminology, and I would like to one day find an Orthodox theologian who can explicate this problem and make the proper distinctions. Or maybe someone has whom I am unaware of.

The problem with "person" and "personal" as it relates to our understanding of the Trinity is tied up also with our understanding of the doctrine of salvation. This is where the Protestant statements regarding "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" really come thick and fast without any real understanding of the patristic and scriptural idea of what "personal" means. I don't know if this meets Owen's need for "an Orthodox theologian who can explicate this problem..." however, I have found that "The Moral Idea of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity" by Metr Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev to be quite helpful in understanding not only the Trinity, but also how the "personal" nature of the Trinity is reflected in the Church and in our salvation. (unfortunately the text is not online, at least not in English, but it can be ordered from many Orthodox booksellers. It is published by Synaxis Press.) In googling this book I also found an article by Fr Georges Florovsky (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/catholicity_church_florovsky.htm) on "The Catholicity of the Church" that touches on the same thing (although I have not really read it yet).

Fr David Moser