The Filioque

[truefiction1]

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.

This line of logic illustrates my point: that people, in this case -- you -- transfer their own unconscious interelational schemas to the Godhead whenever they attempt to use any sort of words or symbols to define the relationships between the members of the Godhead. You did this just now without even realizing it. Forgive me for bringing attention to this, but you automatically/instinctually applied a hierarchical model of an authority figure, represented by the person of the Father, Who "begets" the Son and Who "sends" the Spirit. How do we know that this is what you did? Because when you paraphrased what you believed to be the Scriptural teaching on the matter you unintentionally used terms which imply submission of both the Son and the Spirit. Especially significant is your choice of the words "The Father begets the Son", whereas the Father does not beget the son, rather, the Son is begotten of the Father, as in the form of a mutual agreement. Also, in the same vein, the Father does not, as you have said, "send the Spirit". The Spirit proceeds from the Father, as in the form of a mutual agreement. If there is what appears to be a hierarchical ordering, as it were, then it is an ordering that is freely chosen by each "Hypostasis". So, even if the Spirit chooses to proceed from both the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son, it is not out of any inferiority of the Spirit. Rather, it would be because the Spirit is in full agreement with both the Father and the Son, not forced or coerced, but acting in freedom and in Love.

I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to pick on you or anybody else in pointing out that we are possessed by unconscious relational models, received during the preverbal stage of our infancy through our contingent relationships with our primary caregiver (usually our mothers). I have one too, for sure, and you could recognize it in my own character flaws if you knew me well enough.

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.

I don't think that anyone has stated that the question of the filioque is not important, or a big deal. But is a schism over speculative reasoning regarding the nature of relationships that exist between members of the Divine Godhead (Whose uncreated nature is and always will be beyond our intellectual grasp) justified? No it is not. The falling out of the Greeks and the Latins was not caused by this. As I stated before, the dispute over the filioque is but a symptom of something far deeper and more pervasive which effects intrapersonal, then interpersonal, and finally the greater stage of external societal relations, including the ecclesiological attitudes that separate Byzantium from Rome. The filioque may indeed be the key that can eventually help people to unlock the doors of division and separation. By virtue of this fact alone, the question of the filioque is truly a big deal.

Now, why is it (the filioque) really such a big deal? Because all that we claim to know of the Trinity and the relationships between the members of the Trinity are based upon how the primary constituent parts of our own person tend to work together in the making of our whole selves. What we claim to know about the Trinity is but a psychic projection (much of which occurs beneath conscious awareness) of a model of ourselves. What does this imply about the people who differed in their convictions regarding how the relationships between the members of the Trinity should be described? It implies that there were and are important differences in the unconscious models of themselves along with the unconscious but pervasive relational models which different people have come to be gripped by.

But, do these differences in our personal attachment schemas (unconscious, preverbal models of proper relations between the parts of ourselves as well as proper relations to others) constitute adequate grounds for Christians to refuse to worship together. No way Hose! If that were the case, then not even Orthodox Christians should be worshiping together. What we should do if we are theologians, rather, is to work together with dedicated loyalty to uncover what is at the bottom of our personal differences. This would be to everyone's mutual advantage, both in the now and in the forever.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

What we claim to know about the Trinity is but a psychic projection (much of which occurs beneath conscious awareness) of a model of ourselves.

I fundamentally disagree with you here. What we can know about the Trinity is rooted in Revelation, which is from God. St. Athanasius is very clear in laying out his reasoning for going only as far as he does in "On the Incarnation" and it is rooted not in a psychic projection but in logic of the purist sense (See "The logic of Fairyland" as described by Chesterton in "Orthodoxy".) If there is a Son there is a Father that precedes Him, in logic if not time (which of course is ridiculous to attribute to God). That words have meaning God knows, and so the words He has chosen in His self-Revelation are meant to convey something to us about Him. Those words are not human speculations or projections but God's words. If we don't agree about that then there is no point in discussion.

I believe the words God has chosen do convey a hierarchy, and rightly so. The Monarchy of the Father is a belief of Orthodoxy. It may be a hierarchy of agreement, but that would seem to imply a time when the Son was not the Son but was something else who then agreed to be the Son. I have no facts about such a time and there is no way to get them. From what I see the Trinity has been fundamentally, in the nature of divinity, been altered by the creation of a quality unique to Father and Son and excluding the Spirit. It is somehow outside of the nature and the hypostases. It's a logical impossibility and is something that needs to be addressed by dealing with the issue, not examining ourselves as means to understand supposed projections. Can I ask where you get the Patristic or Biblical support for that view? That what we know about the Trinity is a psychic projection of how we interpreted our own internal and interpersonal relationships?

I may pass your post on to some of my professors and see what they say. You're obviously very intelligent, maybe I am not understanding you and they will set me straight.

And not at all to act immature or hostile (I sincerely don't mean to) but it's "José" not "Hose."

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah, the Son does not choose to be begotten of the Father, He is begotten of the Father. the Spirit does not choose to preceed from the Father, He is proceeding from the Father. the inner Life of the Trinity is not about choice in that sense.

 

[truefiction1]

Thanks for the spelling correction. I felt something wasn't right, but couldn't quite put my finger on it (pun not intended).

If we were to carefully review the writings of theologians, East and West, and look closely at how it is that they are interpreting "Revelation", we would see that they all do indeed use psychic projection when they compare members of the Trinity with the parts of their own selves and with hierarchical, monarchical descriptions that feature various functions and roles. This we would be able to see for ourselves, the proof becoming evident without any need for Scriptural or patristic statements supporting the use of terms such as psychic projection, or transference of unconscious relational models. True that Revelation comes from God, but mankind gives Revelation its purpose (interpret its meaning and conveys it using various symbolic expressions that have meaning only within the context of a Tradition). Many men have had a hand in conveying the meaning of the events that we consider to be "revelations" from God, from the authors of Scripture and onward through the ages of the Church. This is why there are varying "takes", as it were, on what has truly been revealed. This is also why there are differences in the way that various factions of Christians have chosen to interpret revelation surrounding the interrelations between the members of the Trinity.

These differences do indeed exist because of the things that make men different, as already stated. Those things that make us different are highly unconscious to us, until someone or something happens to make us conscious of them.

 

[MilesVitae]

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.

Joseph, would you mind expanding on this point a bit, or point me to where this is explained in Trent.
Thanks!

 

[truefiction1]

yeah, the Son does not choose to be begotten of the Father, He is begotten of the Father. the Spirit does not choose to preceed from the Father, He is proceeding from the Father. the inner Life of the Trinity is not about choice in that sense.

The inner life of the Trinity is not about anything that we can ever comprehend, period. The language we use in reference to the persons of the Trinity merely serve the purpose, as Lossky indicates to be the understanding of Eastern theologians, of showing the absolute diversity of the three persons. Outside of that, any language thought to define anything about the Trinity is false, because we cannot define the Trinity, any of the persons therein, or the nature of their relationships with each other. We do not know what it is to be begotten, or to proceed, or to be the principle cause: only that there is diversity in the Tri-unity. This is why we tend to take revelation at face value when it comes to the Trinity, and leave it at that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The inner life of the Trinity is not about anything that we can ever comprehend, period. The language we use in reference to the persons of the Trinity merely serve the purpose, as Lossky indicates to be the understanding of Eastern theologians, of showing the absolute diversity of the three persons. Outside of that, any language thought to define anything about the Trinity is false, because we cannot define the Trinity, any of the persons therein, or the nature of their relationships with each other. We do not know what it is to be begotten, or to proceed, or to be the principle cause: only that there is diversity in the Tri-unity. This is why we tend to take revelation at face value when it comes to the Trinity, and leave it at that.

I totally agree, that is the issue with the filioque because Rome attempted to define something that is beyond our ability to define. so we should not say that the begottenness of the Son is a choice. and the language chosen never said (to my knowledge) that the relations of the Persons were choice. I just did not like the word choice earlier.

but this post from what I have seen is on par I must say

 

[ArmyMatt]

Joseph, would you mind expanding on this point a bit, or point me to where this is explained in Trent.
Thanks!

there are other councils as well such as 4th Lateran's Confession of Faith: The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding

2nd Lyons does as well:

We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

I swear I had read the canon dealing with it before, but maybe I was mistaken. I can't find it now. At any rate the other councils that ArmyMatt point out make the same point.

 

[ArmyMatt]

from Trent:

For which cause, this council has thought good, that the Symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church makes use of,--as being that principle wherein all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, and that firm and alone foundation against which the gates of hell shall never prevail,--be expressed in the very same words in which it is read in all the churches. Which Symbol is as follows: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made: who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from the heavens, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man: crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered and was buried; and he rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; and he ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father ; and again he will come with glory to judge the living and the dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end: and in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is adored and glorified; who spoke by the prophets and one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[MilesVitae]

there are other councils as well such as 4th Lateran's Confession of Faith: The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding.

2nd Lyons does as well:

We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.

These don't really address any question of "from" being interpreted as "through" - but it's hard to interpret procession from "both equally" as from "one principle" in a way in which the Spirit only proceeds through the Son (I've been looking into a little bit, and there do seem to be some theories about this, though I'm not convinced yet).

 

[buzuxi02]

Fr. Thomas Hopko explains that in eastern theology it is the Father who is God. The Son and Holy Spirit derive that one and same divine essence from the hypostasis of the Father. The church Fathers used the same examples for the Spirit and the Son as light rays emitted from the sun or heat that emanates from a fire. The source being the Father, hence Light of (from)Light, true God of true God.

But there is no evidence ever that the Father is not the only Unoriginate of the originate (for both.).

 

[MilesVitae]

Fr. Thomas Hopko explains that in eastern theology it is the Father who is God. The Son and Holy Spirit derive that one and same divine essence from the hypostasis of the Father. The church Fathers used the same examples for the Spirit and the Son as light rays emitted from the sun or heat that emanates from a fire. The source being the Father, hence Light of (from)Light, true God of true God.

But there is no evidence ever that the Father is not the only Unoriginate of the originate (for both.).

Are you saying that the filioque implies that the Son is unoriginate, as the Father is? That doesn't seem to follow, and it certainly isn't what Catholics believe - other difficulties aside, couldn't the Spirit proceed from the Son and the Father while the Son also was originated from the Father?

 

[Leevo]

I discovered this while browsing through Catholic Answers today and was wondering if anyone wanted to take a crack at this.

Here is a piece of the article on their website about The Filioque.

"...the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son" or "from the Father through the Son."

These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son. However, some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate "through the Son" with "from the Son" is a departure from the true faith.

The expression "from the Father through the Son" is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: "The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin cedula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).

Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily).

However, union is still possible on the filioque issue through the recognition that the formulas "and the Son" and "through the Son" mean the same thing. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "This legitimate complementarity [of expressions], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (CCC 248).

Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43)." -Article from CatholicAnswers regarding The Filioque



I was wondering if anyone would like to dissect this and give me their thoughts regarding it, because here they make a good argument.

 

[ArmyMatt]

These don't really address any question of "from" being interpreted as "through" - but it's hard to interpret procession from "both equally" as from "one principle" in a way in which the Spirit only proceeds through the Son (I've been looking into a little bit, and there do seem to be some theories about this, though I'm not convinced yet).

if from merely meant through, it would not have caused a problem. the word in Greek for when Christ sends the Spirit means "to dispatch on temporal mission," whereas when spoken of through the Father is means "to traverse from a point of origin." if the Spirit's origin was in the Son, Christ would have said it.

it seems silly to think that the Latin West would have had a better knowledge of the meaning in Greek, than the Greek East.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I discovered this while browsing through Catholic Answers today and was wondering if anyone wanted to take a crack at this.

Here is a piece of the article on their website about The Filioque.

"...the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son" or "from the Father through the Son."

These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son. However, some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate "through the Son" with "from the Son" is a departure from the true faith.

The expression "from the Father through the Son" is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: "The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin cedula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).

Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily).

However, union is still possible on the filioque issue through the recognition that the formulas "and the Son" and "through the Son" mean the same thing. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "This legitimate complementarity [of expressions], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (CCC 248).

Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43)." -Article from CatholicAnswers regarding The Filioque



I was wondering if anyone would like to dissect this and give me their thoughts regarding it, because here they make a good argument.

actually that is very inaccurate. Rome actually accused the East of leaving out the filioque intentionally. if from the Father and the Son meant through the Son, they would not have had earlier councils that said that they proceed eternally from BOTH as from one principle. had they always clarified that from the Son means through the Son, there really would not have been an issue. a lot of modern stuff from Rome has them backtracking a LOT.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and that article does not mention that since St Mark of Ephesus, the monastics, and the laity rejected Florence, union never actually happened. one of them facts Rome tends to leave out.

 

[prodromos]

The expression "from the Father through the Son" is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: "The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin cedula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).

The above is bogus. It was on the Emperor's insistence that the Orthodox attend the council so that Constantinople could receive military aid from the West once the churches were reunited. Once they were in Italy, they could not leave unless the Pope provided the (promised) funds. They were literally held under house arrest until they acquiesced to the demands of the Latin theologians.
The council dragged on so long that the Constantinople Patriarch died and the Emperor himself became a widower. Those bishops who had their own means left Florence before the voting took place.
No wonder the council had no lasting impact in the East.

 

[buzuxi02]

Prodromos is correct, the Eastern Orthodox party was under house arrest for 14 years, at which time the Patriarch of Constantinople died of old age before he could ever signed Florence. Secondly both St Augustine and St Gregory of Nyssa were criticised for holding unorthodox opinions. St Mark scolded the Latins for not keeping quiet on the personal opinions of saints and embarrassing their memory by quotinh heterodox opinions and attributing them to saints. The Orthodox party took a swipe at Thomas Aquinas when the Latins falsely claimed the Creed with Filioque was recited atthe 7th council. TheOrthodox response was if that was indeed so, "your Thomas Aquinases" would have only needed to mention the 7th council in defense of the Fillioque against the eastern church.

 

[truefiction1]

For the record, I'd just like to share that the two Trinitarian models, that of the Eastern Church and that of the Western Church, say more about the people who established them than they do about the actual Trinity. This would be because a human is a replica of the Trinity. I believe that I can prove this too, using what has recently been discovered about our minds through the scientific disciplines of affective and cognitive neuroscience.

In the meantime, I believe that Jesus Christ was the most perfect of men Who has ever walked upon the face of the Earth, aside from being the Logos incarnate. The most clear record in my mind regarding His Trinitarian model was recorded in one of the Gospels, where it is alleged that He said of the Spirit, that He proceeds from the Father. As for everyone else's Trinitarian model, they were likely not as perfect as Christ in a purely human sense, so it is possible that their model may have been a bit skewed to the left (cerebral hemisphere).

That's all I got.