The Filioque

[Leevo]

Can you guys go into detail for me as to why the "Filioque clause" matters so much. I got some explanation in my first thread, but was wondering if you might go into more detail for me. Currently, my thought process is as follows...

If God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all co-equal and co-eternal in the trinity, would the Holy Spirit not automatically proceed from both the Father and the Son, seeing as their the same in the trinity?

Please correct my understanding if it is wrong, and help me to understand this issue better from an Orthodox perspective, seeing as I am considering converting to Orthodoxy.

 

[buzuxi02]

The Father is the sole causality of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. As the Creed says there is one God the Father the Almighty.

 

[Nik0s]

Can you guys go into detail for me as to why the "Filioque clause" matters so much. I got some explanation in my first thread, but was wondering if you might go into more detail for me. Currently, my thought process is as follows...

If God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all co-equal and co-eternal in the trinity, would the Holy Spirit not automatically proceed from both the Father and the Son, seeing as their the same in the trinity?

Please correct my understanding if it is wrong, and help me to understand this issue better from an Orthodox perspective, seeing as I am considering converting to Orthodoxy.

1.) The Western Church edited the Creed without the agreement of the whole Church in ecumenical council which makes the Filioque at best an illegal addition. The Pope at the time didn't even accept it, it wasn't until secular pressure was placed on the Pope that it became fully integrated.

2.) not only is the Filioque an illegal addition it makes no sense theologically. What the Filioque does is it makes the Holy Spirit a "lesser" part of the trinity which he. Most certainly is not. In Trinitarian theology you either discuss individual aspects of one of the trinity or the trinity as a whole, never just two members. Obviously then, the Holy Spirit does not proceed forth from himself, and making the error of "double procession" makes it seem as if the Holy Spirit is a "lesser" being apart from the father and son.

 

[prodromos]

Have you been able to digest what Philip Sherrard wrote regarding how Catholic ecclesiology and the filioque go hand in hand, as opposed to Orthodox ecclesiology being an icon of the Trinity?

 

[aChildOfMary]

Why change a Creed that has been universally accepted for half a milenna?
I see the Filioque clause to be nothing but unnecessary.
It's so sad really that the pope had to force this upon the easterners.
Personally I live perfectly fine with the addition and it's one of the matters of minimal importance to me so I'm for a numerous of reasons happy at the Catholic Church, but if I had to make a stand regarding it I land of the Orthodox position.
This is mostly because of the 1) reason Nikn0ls states.
Also how necessary was it really?
Adding something leading to a schism of the size we witnessed then could hardly be worth it.

But then again there were many issues between the east and the west in the centuries leading up to he great schism so this was just what triggered the avelanche.

We also have to keep in mind the politics not just the theological part of the conflict.
The westerners tightening the grip with increasing the popes power and authority and the easterners difference in culture and how they felt closer to Constantinople.

The political aspect of this schism is what's going to make reunification impossible in the future not the Filioque or any other theological dissagrements.

I simply can't see the pope ever be willing to be equal to the Patriarchs and the bishops.
Likewise I cannot see the Patriarchs be willing to listen to the pope.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I used to think it was a minor point as well, and didn't understand why some are so emphatic about it. But after finally getting a glimmer of understanding, I see that it DOES subordinate the Holy Spirit - essentially really creating a tiered Godhead when considered with other teachings - Father, then Son, then Holy Spirit.

The most important, simplest way I can see it is that the Father is THE ultimate Source.

(Now I no longer struggle so much with 3 = 1, but how something can have a source without having an origin is a bit of a mystery.)

 

[truefiction1]

Fahgettaboudit.

 

[aChildOfMary]

There can be no talk of any sort of subordination, or inequality of the Spirit created by the filioque. This is because all three persons are regarded, even by the Western Church, as perfectly free persons, who freely choose the exact manner in which they relate to each other. In the Godhead, the person's preceed their nature and not the other way around. For this reason there seems to be a few contemporary Orthodox theologians who don't regard the filioque to be such a divisive issue as it seemed to be back then. The schism was due to the overwhelming social influence of negative, dark, and hostile affects that had grown rampant between the two sides in question. These damnable emotions were the result of sociopolitical circumstances of those places and times. The division now remains because people like division: being different from someone else helps people establish their own identity. So it is a matter of pride in, and love for, one's beliefs and religious culture than of theology.

Sadly I suspect you're right about the bolded part.
I always think kinda likewise, but I've learned to keep my mouth shut at Orthodox forums.
If you've ever been active at OC.NET so I'm sure you understand what I refer to.

Division for the sake of division is nothing but sad really...

 

[Wryetui]

Adding to what our brothers said previously, the Bible says it clearly:


KJV John 15:26:

26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sadly I suspect you're right about the bolded part.
I always think kinda likewise, but I've learned to keep my mouth shut at Orthodox forums.
If you've ever been active at OC.NET so I'm sure you understand what I refer to.

Division for the sake of division is nothing but sad really...

That's what I often find among my Facebook Orthodox acquaintances (though I know some great people there too). But the discussion threads tend to be much more divisive than I'd like.

 

[ArmyMatt]

the filioque is a problem because it blurs the distinction between the Persons of the Father and the Son, because the Spirit proceeds from "one Principle." this is semisabellianism, which is heretical and the problem with the clause. it also subordinates the Spirit to the Father and Son, because you have a divine action in the Divine Life of God that is shared by 2 out of the 3 Persons.

 

[MilesVitae]

it also subordinates the Spirit to the Father and Son, because you have a divine action in the Divine Life of God that is shared by 2 out of the 3 Persons.

I don't understand this completely (I can't remember if I've asked this exactly before...my apologies if I have and forgotten). Do the Orthodox consider the Son to be a "lesser part" of the Trinity, or "subordinated", or some such thing, to the Father because He is begotten of the Father? If so, then I don't see why the Holy Spirit being "subordinated" would be a problem. Or, if not, then can we really claim the filioque subordinates the Holy Spirit?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Do the Orthodox consider the Son to be a "lesser part" of the Trinity, or "subordinated", or some such thing, to the Father because He is begotten of the Father?

nope, St Basil the Great points out that all that someone can say about the Father being unbegotten, the Son being begotten, and the Spirit proceeding is that they are different. each of the Three Persons is equal as God (being of the same essence, mind, will, action, energy, etc) in honor and worship and power.

If so, then I don't see why the Holy Spirit being "subordinated" would be a problem. Or, if not, then can we really claim the filioque subordinates the Holy Spirit?

well, it does because if "procession" is something that is unique to Divine Nature, then since nothing proceeds from the Spirit He is lesser Divine being.

 

[MilesVitae]

well, it does because if "procession" is something that is unique to Divine Nature, then since nothing proceeds from the Spirit He is lesser Divine being.

But for the Holy Spirit to have a fully divine nature, why is it necessary for Him (or, for that matter, for any other of the persons) to engage in any act which is also performed by the other two? Why CAN'T there be something that two persons do and the other doesn't?

 

[ArmyMatt]

But for the Holy Spirit to have a fully divine nature, why is it necessary for Him (or, for that matter, for any other of the persons) to engage in any act which is also performed by the other two? Why CAN'T there be something that two persons do and the other doesn't?

because when there is a God in Trinity, He is either revealed in terms of what is shared by the Three to show one God, or unique to the Person. the filioque does neither and there is no other quality that is shared by Two Persons at the exclusion of the Third. and, it was formed because St Augustine speculated about the inner Life of the Trinity, and not Divine revelation.

 

[MilesVitae]

because when there is a God in Trinity, He is either revealed in terms of what is shared by the Three to show one God, or unique to the Person.

I understand that that is your claim, but I am asking why this must be so....

the filioque does neither and there is no other quality that is shared by Two Persons at the exclusion of the Third.

But the fact that there is no other quality shared only by two, does not prove that there can be no quality shared only by two....

and, it was formed because St Augustine speculated about the inner Life of the Trinity, and not Divine revelation.

Is there evidence that the claims you're making (that any divine quality must be shared by all or possessed only by one divine person) are actually revelation - I mean, other than pointing out that the filioque wasn't taught in the early Church, that is.... If we can see from Church history that the filioque was not the orthodox teaching, then fine, of course - and from that fact, we could conclude your principle. But, does your principle prove the filioque, or does it stand and fall with your position on whether the filioque is true? If we cannot say why your principle must be so (but only point out that it is so, given the non-truth of the filioque), or at least show that it was revealed to be so, then it doesn't seem it can be used to disprove the filioque.

 

[Lukaris]

All I understand is that though the Holy Spirit speaks through the prophets (via the creed) the Son seems to speak at a couple crucial points.

For ex. Isaiah:

Isaiah 48:16New King James Version (NKJV)

16
“Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
From the time that it was, I was there.
And now the Lord God and His Spirit
Have[a] sent Me.”


The Spirit sends the Son for the incarnation, I believe.



The Son declares,


John 15:26New King James Version (NKJV)


26 “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.





So from what I understand is that the Spirit sent the Son for the incarnation. Then the Son sent the Holy Spirit to fall upon us at various stages beginning at Pentecost. St. Paul sums up the Holy Trinity's plan of salvation in its completion in his letter to the Ephesians:


Ephesians 2:18New King James Version (NKJV)

18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.



From this I understand the 3 coeternal, coequal persons of God, the Trinity declared to us & can explain no further.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I understand that that is your claim, but I am asking why this must be so....

why must God have been revealed as He? why were angels created before humans? why is reincarnation false? it is not our place to know these things, these are questions whose answers are only known only to God.

But the fact that there is no other quality shared only by two, does not prove that there can be no quality shared only by two....

if it were, that would have been revealed by God. there is nothing shared by only Two Persons and not the Third.

Is there evidence that the claims you're making (that any divine quality must be shared by all or possessed only by one divine person) are actually revelation - I mean, other than pointing out that the filioque wasn't taught in the early Church, that is.... If we can see from Church history that the filioque was not the orthodox teaching, then fine, of course - and from that fact, we could conclude your principle. But, does your principle prove the filioque, or does it stand and fall with your position on whether the filioque is true? If we cannot say why your principle must be so (but only point out that it is so, given the non-truth of the filioque), or at least show that it was revealed to be so, then it doesn't seem it can be used to disprove the filioque.

before the intro of the filioque, I don't think so. St Photius the Great was the first to my knowledge that called the filioque semisabellianism and spoke of the subordination of the Spirit. the Church always dealt with heresy as it faced it. what there is nothing of, is the early Church teaching that the Spirit's eternal procession is from the Father and the Son. Rome also sided with those against the filioque initially, before falling to Germanic influence. even after the Franks accepted it, Pope John (VIII or X I think) signed off on a local council that excommunicated anyone that added it to the Creed.

 

[MilesVitae]

why must God have been revealed as He? why were angels created before humans? why is reincarnation false? it is not our place to know these things, these are questions whose answers are only known only to God.

if it were, that would have been revealed by God. there is nothing shared by only Two Persons and not the Third.

before the intro of the filioque, I don't think so. St Photius the Great was the first to my knowledge that called the filioque semisabellianism and spoke of the subordination of the Spirit. the Church always dealt with heresy as it faced it. what there is nothing of, is the early Church teaching that the Spirit's eternal procession is from the Father and the Son. Rome also sided with those against the filioque initially, before falling to Germanic influence. even after the Franks accepted it, Pope John (VIII or X I think) signed off on a local council that excommunicated anyone that added it to the Creed.

But, Matt, if we can't answer why it must be so (that is, why a quality cannot be possessed by only two persons of the Trinity), then it is of little use in proving the filioque.
Unless, of course, you could prove that it was a principle recognized as revealed before there was any controversy, then that would be another matter. But if, as you say, that was not the case, then the principle simply falls or stands with one's position regarding the filioque - our belief about this principle must follow from our conclusion about the filioque, not vica versa. In other words, either the Orthodox position is true and we know, therefore, that there is no quality possessed by two divine persons, etc., OR the Catholic position is true and we, therefore, know that there IS a quality possessed by two divine persons. But, if this principle wasn't articulated before the controversy, and we can't explain why it must be true, then using it to prove the filioque just seems like begging the question to me.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

This is all in St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation." That's where the Orthodox position comes from. I can highly recommend Fr. John Behr's commentary on it in The Nicene Faith if you're up for something a bit academic investigating the treatise - its interpreted quite differently in an Orthodox perspective from the Roman Catholic.

Divine Revelation gives us all we can know about the Trinity. Anything arrived at by logic is questionable, because God does not have to abide by logic. Human logic is a weak and silly thing, especially in the fact of a God who is Three-in-One, walks on water, and resurrects from the dead.

St. Athanasius describes Godhead (which is really an old fashioned way of saying "Godhood," it's an attribute) as being the nature of divinity. This is the same in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That which is unique to each is called their hypostasis. So being begotten is part of the hypostasis of the Son, not part of the nature of Godhead.

Everything must fall into either that which is in common, and so part of the nature of divinity, or that which is unique to a hypostasis. There is no middle ground in any of the Patristic texts.

Thus if the Father and the Son share something that the Holy Spirit doesn't it subjugates the Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son participate in something the Spirit does not. Is that part of their hypostasis? But it cannot be, because the hypostasis is completely unique. Is it in the nature of divinity? Then the Spirit must partake of it as well.

In all the patristic texts The Father's hypostasis is the unbegotten and the origin of all things. We know these things from Scripture. The filioque goes against the patristic faith because, as was said, it subjugates the divine nature to human logic. Furthermore, the continuation of this practice in the Roman Catholic teachings found in the Theology of the Body series moves Roman Catholicism further from the Orthodox teachings on the Trinity.

And while contemporary interpretations of the filioque might insist that its meant to be understood as "through the Son," the Council of Trent rejects that possibility.