The Filioque

[ArmyMatt]

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.

that's the problem. that's the philosophical speculation that caused all of the problems in the West. what was revealed was that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and that the Creed cannot be altered. the filioque goes against revelation and contradicts the Ecumenical Councils.

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.

and that's another problem, what we know is that when the Trinity was articulated, it was either unique to the Person, or shared by the Three. you see nothing like the filioque. the councils say, before the filioque was added in the West, that all manner and teaching concerning the Holy Spirit is full and complete in the Creed and that the Creed is not alterable.

 

[MilesVitae]

that's the problem. that's the philosophical speculation that caused all of the problems in the West. what was revealed was that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and that the Creed cannot be altered. the filioque goes against revelation and contradicts the Ecumenical Councils.

.....

and that's another problem, what we know is that when the Trinity was articulated, it was either unique to the Person, or shared by the Three. you see nothing like the filioque. the councils say, before the filioque was added in the West, that all manner and teaching concerning the Holy Spirit is full and complete in the Creed and that the Creed is not alterable.

So what this all leaves me with is it's no use arguing from the principles you had cited. It would seem that any attempt to actually show by reason that there can't be qualities possessed by two divine persons, that this subordinates the Holy Spirit, or that such a procession as what the filioque doctrine describes blurs the distinction between Father and Son, is as much philosophical speculation as is the reasoning of the west which you claim got us in this mess in the first place (and, I take you as agreeing with me on this point, though correct me if I've misinterpreted you). It seems sometimes like Orthodox discussion of the Trinity and filioque (and I don't mean this as a bashing of the Orthodox or Orthodoxy, I'm just observing a pattern I've noticed) oscillate between trying to shed the light of reason on the Trinity, and throwing our hands up and saying "Well, it's all a mystery anyway, we don't know why!" If it's all just a mystery, and there is (for us) no answer to "why," then the only place to turn is the historical record of the Church's teaching, which you are now citing, and we should all just pretty much leave aside any of the other sort of reasoning we were discussing....

 

[ArmyMatt]

well yeah, and we know that when the filioque came to the forefront, the saints (and even Rome for a time) rejected it. so if the truth lies in ONLY what has been revealed and we should not speculate at all, then that is what we should do. what has been revealed is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Father and the Son.

 

[MilesVitae]

well yeah, and we know that when the filioque came to the forefront, the saints (and even Rome for a time) rejected it. so if the truth lies in ONLY what has been revealed and we should not speculate at all, then that is what we should do.

Now I'm trying to figure you out... Do you actually think that speculation is useless as regards the Trinity (you sound hesitant)? I'm not convinced of it myself...though I find a lot of the speculative defenses against the filioque that I've seen to be dubious at best, if you couldn't tell...

 

[ArmyMatt]

speculation is not useless, but it can become troublesome because you can come to conclusions that are wrong or take things too far, such as what St Augustine did. if our faith is based on what was revealed in Christ, then we take that revelation. the filioque was not part of that revelation.

so speculate away, but if your speculation comes into conflict with revealed truth, the speculation has to go.

 

[MilesVitae]

speculation is not useless, but it can become troublesome because you can come to conclusions that are wrong or take things too far, such as what St Augustine did. if our faith is based on what was revealed in Christ, then we take that revelation. the filioque was not part of that revelation.

so speculate away, but if your speculation comes into conflict with revealed truth, the speculation has to go.

Hmmm - so the problem with the filioque wasn't at all that the filioqueans tried to figure these things out through philosophical speculation. The problem was that they failed to acknowledge or at least to recognize when they had come to an (erroneous) conclusion which contradicted Revelation....?

 

[ArmyMatt]

yep. speculation is not bad, per say. saints encourage it, but to acknowledge that if what you speculate about conflicts, it goes. if it doesn't conflict, it can stay. sometimes it can help clarify something and actually be dogmatic. what we must do is use the Church as our standard.

 

[MilesVitae]

yep. speculation is not bad, per say. saints encourage it, but to acknowledge that if what you speculate about conflicts, it goes. if it doesn't conflict, it can stay. sometimes it can help clarify something and actually be dogmatic. what we must do is use the Church as our standard.

How does a speculation become dogma?

 

[ArmyMatt]

How does a speculation become dogma?

say my thinking causes be to say something that was new in my presentation. people come to realize that what I said was a new way of expressing the belief of the Church. so the Church rubber stamps it and affirms that this new expression reveals the Faith delivered once for all the saints.

as an example, Tertullian before he became a heretic was the first to say that the Trinity is Three Persons in One Substance. no one before used that terminology. so in a sense he brought a new way of speaking of God, but this clarified what was given at Pentecost. I am sure he thought and prayed about for a that while before he wrote it.

 

[buzuxi02]

The fillioque suppresses the heirarchial model of the Trinity. This suppression is seen in the Athanasian Creed which makes it unclear whether the hypostasis of the Father is the only Unoriginate source of the Trinity.

It also blurs the reciprocating actions of the Son and Holy Spirit. The Father gives to the Son all things and the Holy Spirit takes from the Son and declares it. In time the Spirit sends the Son and likewise the Son sends the Spirit. On the other hand no one sends the Father but all things flow back to him as ArmyMatt says the 'first principle'.

 

[Wryetui]

But MilesVitae, what about the passage from the Bible I mentioned before when Christ clearly says that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father? Jesus states clearly that the Holy Ghost doesn't proceed also from Him.

 

[MilesVitae]

My apologies, Joseph, I didn't see this post at first.

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.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look into it.

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.

I confess I'm still having trouble understanding why this is so - why it would be impossible for Spirit to proceed in some way from the Son, while the Son remains uniquely distinguished from the Father (and Spirit) by His relationship to Him (and to the Spirit). However, I think I am starting to see more clearly how it is problematic to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son if you say that He proceeds from them as from one principle....depending on what precisely the western Church actually means by that...

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.

I fail to understand how the filioque subjugates the divine to human logic (unless you simply mean that it attempts to human conclusions against revelation - it seems to me that if a conclusion of human reason contradicts revelation, we can know that those conclusions which were drawn illogically somewhere along the line, not that reality is not bound by logic) - after all, it seems as though you're, in part, attempting to disprove the filioque by logic. (Also, though it's a little off topic, I disagree with your earlier way of saying that "God does not have to abide by logic," which is certainly not shown by Resurrection and walking on water, since those regard the laws of physics, not matters of logic. I would think it is safer to say that God cannot contradict logic - He cannot be illogical, even if His nature cannot be fully comprehended and explained through human logic).

 

[MilesVitae]

But MilesVitae, what about the passage from the Bible I mentioned before when Christ clearly says that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father? Jesus states clearly that the Holy Ghost doesn't proceed also from Him.

Well it only says that He proceeds from the Father, not that He doesn't proceed from the Son. While I could see this as supporting the anti-filioque position in conjunction with other evidence, it seems unsafe to draw a conclusion on such an issue from one passage like this. In any case, though, my main concern in my discussion with Matt wasn't just any evidence for the Eastern Orthodox position, but rather specific arguments about the alleged principles of of the Trinity precluding the possibility of the Spirit's procession from the Son.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I confess I'm still having trouble understanding why this is so - why it would be impossible for Spirit to proceed in some way from the Son, while the Son remains uniquely distinguished from the Father (and Spirit) by His relationship to Him (and to the Spirit). However, I think I am starting to see more clearly how it is problematic to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son if you say that He proceeds from them as from one principle....depending on what precisely the western Church actually means by that...

you nailed it. the issue is NOT in saying the Spirit proceeds from the Son per say if we understand that it is through the Son. this is what St Maximos the Confessor said and is what we see in Scripture (Christ breathes on the Apostles). the issue is saying the Spirit's eternal origin is in both the Father and the Son, and in saying that the Father and the Son from one principle. this idea's origin is in pagan Greek philosophy and how one can only know something by its opposite.

and that the Creed cannot be altered. that is the other issue.

 

[MilesVitae]

you nailed it. the issue is NOT in saying the Spirit proceeds from the Son per say if we understand that it is through the Son. this is what St Maximos the Confessor said and is what we see in Scripture (Christ breathes on the Apostles). the issue is saying the Spirit's eternal origin is in both the Father and the Son, and in saying that the Father and the Son from one principle. this idea's origin is in pagan Greek philosophy and how one can only know something by its opposite.

Well, when I said I didn't understand the problem with the Spirit proceeding from the Son, I meant with the son being an origin of some sort - though, I don't even know if it makes sense to speak of the Spirit proceeding from the Son as origin, but not as a single source with the Father...of course, then, again, do any of us here understand why it makes sense to speak of one God in three persons in the first place, let alone all this?

Could you expand on your last sentence about this having it's origin in Greek philosophy? I'm pretty sure I've never heard this....

and that the Creed cannot be altered. that is the other issue.

I forget if I've asked this before.... but I seem to remember someone saying the creed was, in fact, altered already....at another ecumenical council? In any case, this point almost strikes me as trivial....I'm hesitant to say that it is, but at the same time, isn't the actual content of the faith (in other words, the question of whether the filioque is or is not heresy) more important than whether the wording of a particular expression of the faith was supposed to be changed or not? Wouldn't unity be a greater cause than insisting on sticking to the original words of the creed at this point in time (so long as there is no heresy involved, of course, which is the other side of the issue)?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, when I said I didn't understand the problem with the Spirit proceeding from the Son, I meant with the son being an origin of some sort - though, I don't even know if it makes sense to speak of the Spirit proceeding from the Son as origin, but not as a single source with the Father...of course, then, again, do any of us here understand why it makes sense to speak of one God in three persons in the first place, let alone all this?

that is the problem, we don't know exactly, so we should only accept what was given in faith. the origin of the Spirit in the Son was never revealed.

Could you expand on your last sentence about this having it's origin in Greek philosophy? I'm pretty sure I've never heard this....

Platonic philosophy said that one of the ways that one can only truly know something by its opposite. so we know "Father" because we can contrast it with "Son." St Augustine took the Spirit and contrasted Him with the One Principle that is the Father and Son (whatever that means). hence, proceeding from both as from one principle.

I forget if I've asked this before.... but I seem to remember someone saying the creed was, in fact, altered already....at another ecumenical council? In any case, this point almost strikes me as trivial....I'm hesitant to say that it is, but at the same time, isn't the actual content of the faith (in other words, the question of whether the filioque is or is not heresy) more important than whether the wording of a particular expression of the faith was supposed to be changed or not? Wouldn't unity be a greater cause than insisting on sticking to the original words of the creed at this point in time (so long as there is no heresy involved, of course, which is the other side of the issue)?

well, it was I am pretty sure Chalcedon that said that the Creed cannot be altered, and all the subsequent councils affirmed this and the Creed after Constantinople. it might seem trivial, but they put that prohibition in there for a reason. and the issue is that the filioque DOES have heretical implications. so an issue could also be that adding the filioque opens the door for heresy to creep in later, even if that was not the original intent.

 

[truefiction1]

Well, both the Greeks and the Latins understand that the three persons of the Godhead freely choose the manner in which they relate to one another. Person-before-nature, right? So, whether the Spirit proceeds only from the Father in eternity, or from both the Father and the Son, it is by free choice and not any subordination of the person's nature to some predetermined schema of Divine existence. Since this is the case, it has been pointed out by a few modern Orthodox Theologians that the filioque need not be seen as such a dividing issue as it was understood to be during the "negative affect" fueled East/West divisiveness of the past. Vladmir Lossky makes a big fuss about it (filioque), but while I do believe that he has stumbled upon important differences between our Churches, I don't think that he at all comprehends that the real basis underlying our differences does not reside within the filioque doctrine, nor are they caused by it: the doctrine is not the cause of our differences but merely one of the symptoms. It was the differences in culture that led to the differences in the Trinitarian formula, among other things.

 

[buzuxi02]

True,

I have a problem with this "freely choose in the matter they relate to each other". Can you elaborate as Ive never heard this before. This doesn't sound right to me. Are you saying the Son can choose to be begotten by the Spirit and/or the Father can choose to be sent by the Spirit?

 

[truefiction1]

True,

I have a problem with this "freely choose in the matter they relate to each other". Can you elaborate as Ive never heard this before. This doesn't sound right to me. Are you saying the Son can choose to be begotten by the Spirit and/or the Father can choose to be sent by the Spirit?

What I am saying is that none of the members of the Trinity are believed to be bound by any necessity. This means that how they relate to one another is, was, and will be a matter of their own freewill. The son chooses to be begotten of the Father. The Spirit chooses to proceed from the Father. The Father chooses to be the one of Whom the Son is begotten and from Whom the Spirit proceeds. Each member of the Trinity is fully God, in and of themselves.

When we try to understand the three members of the Godhead by comparing their relationships to each other in terms of how three three primary parts of our own psyche relate to one another (which is what theologians typically do) we often make the mistake of also transferring the interdependence that these parts of our own finite and created psyches share. But the three Divine persons are not interdependent creatures. Each of them is "true God of True God". Each of them are uncreated free agents.

How does this relate to the question of the filioque? The answer lies far beyond the scope of a forum post, I'm afraid.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

That would seem to go beyond what we can know, as all we have is what has been revealed. In other words, the God we know is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, where the Father begets the Son and the Spirit is sent by the Father. That's what it says in Scripture. To suppose that it could have been otherwise...I mean, what basis do you have to go off of other than human logic and reasoning? It would entirely change God. It's like saying Christ *could* have saved humanity by some other way than the Cross - but the only God I know is the Crucified One. I have no way of knowing or supposing another God. How would we when the only way we know Christ is God is by His death and resurrection? Remove the means by which we know Him and how can we suppose to still know anything about Him? It's the same in the Trinity.

If modern theologians are stating such things it does not surprise me that they are saying the filioque is not that big of a deal - they're using the same techniques that led to the mistake in the first place.