Effects of the Filioque?

[AMM]

Hey folks!

I've seen some people before argue that the filioque subordinates the Holy Spirit so those who profess the filioque must raise up something new to "fill in the gap" if that makes sense.

Specifically I've heard the argument that the rise of the papacy is a direct result of the filioque, so I was wondering if y'all agreed with that and what other things have been caused by the filioque.
(Also if y'all can point to something in Lutheranism (or the conservative reformation in general) that'd be great.)

Thanks!

 

[Hermit76]

Coming from Protestantism this has been a difficult argument for me to follow. I think it is because I tried to go from where Catholicism and subsequently Protestantism are now and trace back the influence. This misses the entire context in which the filioque was inserted. I'm not so sure the wording is as powerful as the action. Does that make sense? (Don't get me wrong tho, the wording is a problem.)

 

[truefiction1]

The filioque is not the cause of the bias that has shaped western Christianity, but rather, it is the prime symbol representing that bias. It is a failure to resist the underlying bias that led to the Roman definition of the papacy and, later, the Protestant Reformation.

In a separate thread in St. Justin's (our debate forum), about ROCOR and Sr. Vassa, I mentioned the cross-cultural bias toward right-handedness, and we exchanged some information about this. The right hand and side of the body is actually governed by the left cerebral hemisphere, and visa-versa. This is indicative of a left-hemisphere bias and the left hemisphere is also generally that where language and abstract/cognitive reasoning are formed. The language and cognitive reasoning of God the Father is His Word (Logos). Because mankind has, overall, unconsciously shown favor toward the left hemisphere due to it's many valuable contributions to our lives in "this" fallen and grossly physical world, it would only be a matter of time before the bias began to reshape the true Faith (wherein Logos and Spirit are equal yet not identical emanations from the Father) into something that subjects Spirit to the Word, rather than simply knowing that the two coexist as coming from the Father, each in their own unique way, in perfect balance within the perfect unity of the Holy Trinity, as taught by Christ.

 

[Aleksandros]

The filioque is not the cause of the bias that has shaped western Christianity, but rather, it is the prime symbol representing that bias. It is a failure to resist the underlying bias that led to the Roman definition of the papacy and, later, the Protestant Reformation.

In a separate thread in St. Justin's (our debate forum), about ROCOR and Sr. Vassa, I mentioned the cross-cultural bias toward right-handedness, and we exchanged some information about this. The right hand and side of the body is actually governed by the left cerebral hemisphere, and visa-versa. This is indicative of a left-hemisphere bias and the left hemisphere is also generally that where language and abstract/cognitive reasoning are formed. The language and cognitive reasoning of God the Father is His Word (Logos). Because mankind has, overall, unconsciously shown favor toward the left hemisphere due to it's many valuable contributions to our lives in "this" fallen and grossly physical world, it would only be a matter of time before the bias began to reshape the true Faith (wherein Logos and Spirit are equal yet not identical emanations from the Father) into something that subjects Spirit to the Word, rather than simply knowing that the two coexist as coming from the Father, each in their own unique way, in perfect balance within the perfect unity of the Holy Trinity, as taught by Christ.

The thing about the prevalence of left - brained thinking on the West (an interesting symbolism on the globe) s something I've held for a long time. This is the first time I've met someone who shares it!

 

[prodromos]

Philip Sherrard, in his book "Church, Papacy and Schism. A Theological Perspective", links the filioque to the development of the papacy. It would not do the explanation justice if I posted some excerpts, as it really needs full context, plus, as he was living in Greece for many years, he developed a very Greek tendancy to write very long sentences.
If you are interested in reading it then send me a PM with your email. I've scanned the book to pdf.

 

[ArmyMatt]

the Filioque is also the root of the Pentecostal over emphasis on the Spirit, as because of the Western subordination of the Spirit, the Pentecostals have swung too far in the opposite direction when it comes to their belief.

 

[Lukaris]

From what I understand is that the Orthodox east never accepted the filioque but grudgingly tolerated it in the Orthodox west until 1054. In 1054, the west tried to force compliance to the filioque on the east; that and other things created the eventual schism.

Sadly, the vast multitudes in the east or west had nothing to do with this but a few Latin clerics overstepped their bounds in 1054 ( not the pope even).

 

[ArmyMatt]

From what I understand is that the Orthodox east never accepted the filioque but grudgingly tolerated it in the Orthodox west until 1054. In 1054, the west tried to force compliance to the filioque on the east; that and other things created the eventual schism.

Sadly, the vast multitudes in the east or west had nothing to do with this but a few Latin clerics overstepped their bounds in 1054 ( not the pope even).

and even the more Latin, as opposed to German, West stood against the Filioque for many years as well.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The Filioque marginalized the Spirit immensely, and I would say that consequently the Pope fulfilled the role in the West that the Holy Spirit did in the East. The Pope become the undisputed guide, guardian and "Spirit of Truth" for the West. Also the Pope's authority was used to justify the Filioque (even without his knowledge sometimes, or actual support), and so in a way it was pushed just to validate the Filioque.

In a more abstract sense, the theology required to the support the Filioque changed the understanding of God considerably. God's Persons were understood no longer as existentially distinct persons, but as God simply relating to himself in different ways, each way called a "person", although I would hardly say the term is applicable. This lead to Catholicism identifying their God with the God of Islam and Judaism, for instance, whereas the Orthodox have been somewhat more tentative about that (and even, for a period, anathematized "the god of Mohammed"). This springs from the Filioque sympathizers arguing that the Spirit's procession is essential rather than existential.

 

[AMM]

Coming from Protestantism this has been a difficult argument for me to follow. I think it is because I tried to go from where Catholicism and subsequently Protestantism are now and trace back the influence. This misses the entire context in which the filioque was inserted. I'm not so sure the wording is as powerful as the action. Does that make sense? (Don't get me wrong tho, the wording is a problem.)

Okay yeah that makes sense. I see the change as very much evidence of the supposed supremacy of the pope and a disregard for the previous councils.

The filioque is not the cause of the bias that has shaped western Christianity, but rather, it is the prime symbol representing that bias. It is a failure to resist the underlying bias that led to the Roman definition of the papacy and, later, the Protestant Reformation.

In a separate thread in St. Justin's (our debate forum), about ROCOR and Sr. Vassa, I mentioned the cross-cultural bias toward right-handedness, and we exchanged some information about this. The right hand and side of the body is actually governed by the left cerebral hemisphere, and visa-versa. This is indicative of a left-hemisphere bias and the left hemisphere is also generally that where language and abstract/cognitive reasoning are formed. The language and cognitive reasoning of God the Father is His Word (Logos). Because mankind has, overall, unconsciously shown favor toward the left hemisphere due to it's many valuable contributions to our lives in "this" fallen and grossly physical world, it would only be a matter of time before the bias began to reshape the true Faith (wherein Logos and Spirit are equal yet not identical emanations from the Father) into something that subjects Spirit to the Word, rather than simply knowing that the two coexist as coming from the Father, each in their own unique way, in perfect balance within the perfect unity of the Holy Trinity, as taught by Christ.

Hmm so you're saying that the emphasis on logic, reason, etc. is a cause of elevating the Son above the Spirit (through the filioque)? Or that it is a result of that?

Evidently the Orthodox see the Logos and the Spirit as equal; do they view the Father as co-equal with them?

Philip Sherrard, in his book "Church, Papacy and Schism. A Theological Perspective", links the filioque to the development of the papacy. It would not do the explanation justice if I posted some excerpts, as it really needs full context, plus, as he was living in Greece for many years, he developed a very Greek tendancy to write very long sentences.
If you are interested in reading it then send me a PM with your email. I've scanned the book to pdf.

That would be great. I'll send you a PM. Thanks!

the Filioque is also the root of the Pentecostal over emphasis on the Spirit, as because of the Western subordination of the Spirit, the Pentecostals have swung too far in the opposite direction when it comes to their belief.

Okay, that's interesting. That's sort of what I was wondering about. It's curious though because the Pentecostals don't use creeds (which opens the door to all sorts of error obviously), so I wonder if their overemphasis is a direct result of the filioque or simply because they reject creeds...

 

[ArmyMatt]

Okay, that's interesting. That's sort of what I was wondering about. It's curious though because the Pentecostals don't use creeds (which opens the door to all sorts of error obviously), so I wonder if their overemphasis is a direct result of the filioque or simply because they reject creeds...

well, their rejection of Creeds might have led to something like Oneness Pentecostals. their over emphasis on sensual stuff in their services and how they view tongues is because of the deemphasis on the Spirit historically in the West in contrast with the charismatic Church in Acts. so the pendulum overswung the other way

 

[truefiction1]

Hmm so you're saying that the emphasis on logic, reason, etc. is a cause of elevating the Son above the Spirit (through the filioque)? Or that it is a result of that?

Evidently the Orthodox see the Logos and the Spirit as equal; do they view the Father as co-equal with them?

Some of our modern theologians have taught that the Logos bias was caused by the filioque. But the filioque did not cause the bias. The bias exists throughout recorded history, and the filioque is a manifestation, in the form of dogma, of the preexisting bias. So yes, I am saying that the filioque doctrine is the result of left hemispheric bias.

The Church holds that the Holy Trinity is One Eternal God in three persons. Our God is the Father, Who has both His Word and His Spirit, Who are also persons Who are equal to the Father and to each other. Equal... but not identical in their personhood.

 

[AMM]

The Filioque marginalized the Spirit immensely, and I would say that consequently the Pope fulfilled the role in the West that the Holy Spirit did in the East. The Pope become the undisputed guide, guardian and "Spirit of Truth" for the West. Also the Pope's authority was used to justify the Filioque (even without his knowledge sometimes, or actual support), and so in a way it was pushed just to validate the Filioque.

In a more abstract sense, the theology required to the support the Filioque changed the understanding of God considerably. God's Persons were understood no longer as existentially distinct persons, but as God simply relating to himself in different ways, each way called a "person", although I would hardly say the term is applicable. This lead to Catholicism identifying their God with the God of Islam and Judaism, for instance, whereas the Orthodox have been somewhat more tentative about that (and even, for a period, anathematized "the god of Mohammed"). This springs from the Filioque sympathizers arguing that the Spirit's procession is essential rather than existential.

My response to you gets its own post

What you're saying about the pope filling the role as the guide and guardian of truth is what I was referring to in the OP. The way you articulated it though is new and provides extra detail so thanks! That sorta lets me see the way this could be applied in protestantism...

What I'm thinking about specifically (and this isn't a fully fleshed out or developed thought) is the idea of sola scriptura. Now, I'm going to deal with the Lutheran view here, which is quite different from your normal protestant. But here's my train of thought:
We know that the Spirit is the guide and guardian of the truth (John 16:13, 2 Timothy 1:14). Therefore, we can also say that it is the Spirit who protects the Church from errors (Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15). Luther (rightfully) saw errors in Rome during the 16th century. The pope was removed as the "undisputed guide, guardian and "Spirit of Truth"" as you put it, and so something was needed to fill in. Without a guide, how can we know what to believe? (NB: I realized after writing this that this is almost word for word what the Eunuch says in Acts 8:31 lol)
The answer to that was Scripture. How we understand the Logos is ultimately determined by, well, the Logos. We reject the council of florence which officially defines the Roman eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, so in theory we could still hold Orthodox beliefs on this, but because of the wording of the creed, I tend to think that we naturally assume that the Spirit proceeds in the same way from the Father as from the Son. So we in practice hold the Roman view, even if in theory we are ambiguous.
In any case, we have elevated the Logos above the Spirit because rather than trusting all the places where the Spirit has promised to work (through the Church, the Sacraments, and the Word), we only trust two of them (the Word and Sacraments). We elevate the Logos over the Spirit and thus supordinate the Spirit's role in preserving Christendom.
In other words, even if we don't dogmatize what "and the Son" means in the Nicene Creed, our other doctrines still lead to the error. The pope replaced the Holy Spirit (and the Church). We replaced the pope with Scripture. I'd still argue that we're better off than Rome in this case -- at least our final arbiter for doctrine is one of the ways the Spirit has promised to work and come to us, unlike the false idea of ex cathedra statements, infallibility of the pope, etc.

Does that sound correct or reasonable?

Of course, this still presents the problem of going against all the Church Father statements that seem to pretty clearly argue for Scripture alone (in the Lutheran understanding not the dreadful generic protestant view)... so again I'm at a slight impasse. (But twenty minutes ago when I first had these thoughts I realized for the first time, and actually articulated to myself that I just might be Orthodox and not Lutheran, which is a step beyond where I've been before (and am at this very instant lol) as a mere inquirer and someone with a like for orthodoxy)

Sorry for the long post

 

[~Anastasia~]

My response to you gets its own post

What you're saying about the pope filling the role as the guide and guardian of truth is what I was referring to in the OP. The way you articulated it though is new and provides extra detail so thanks! That sorta lets me see the way this could be applied in protestantism...

What I'm thinking about specifically (and this isn't a fully fleshed out or developed thought) is the idea of sola scriptura. Now, I'm going to deal with the Lutheran view here, which is quite different from your normal protestant. But here's my train of thought:
We know that the Spirit is the guide and guardian of the truth (John 16:13, 2 Timothy 1:14). Therefore, we can also say that it is the Spirit who protects the Church from errors (Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15). Luther (rightfully) saw errors in Rome during the 16th century. The pope was removed as the "undisputed guide, guardian and "Spirit of Truth"" as you put it, and so something was needed to fill in. Without a guide, how can we know what to believe? (NB: I realized after writing this that this is almost word for word what the Eunuch says in Acts 8:31 lol)
The answer to that was Scripture. How we understand the Logos is ultimately determined by, well, the Logos. We reject the council of florence which officially defines the Roman eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, so in theory we could still hold Orthodox beliefs on this, but because of the wording of the creed, I tend to think that we naturally assume that the Spirit proceeds in the same way from the Father as from the Son. So we in practice hold the Roman view, even if in theory we are ambiguous.
In any case, we have elevated the Logos above the Spirit because rather than trusting all the places where the Spirit has promised to work (through the Church, the Sacraments, and the Word), we only trust two of them (the Word and Sacraments). We elevate the Logos over the Spirit and thus supordinate the Spirit's role in preserving Christendom.
In other words, even if we don't dogmatize what "and the Son" means in the Nicene Creed, our other doctrines still lead to the error. The pope replaced the Holy Spirit (and the Church). We replaced the pope with Scripture. I'd still argue that we're better off than Rome in this case -- at least our final arbiter for doctrine is one of the ways the Spirit has promised to work and come to us, unlike the false idea of ex cathedra statements, infallibility of the pope, etc.

Does that sound correct or reasonable?

Of course, this still presents the problem of going against all the Church Father statements that seem to pretty clearly argue for Scripture alone (in the Lutheran understanding not the dreadful generic protestant view)... so again I'm at a slight impasse. (But twenty minutes ago when I first had these thoughts I realized for the first time, and actually articulated to myself that I just might be Orthodox and not Lutheran, which is a step beyond where I've been before (and am at this very instant lol) as a mere inquirer and someone with a like for orthodoxy)

Sorry for the long post

That's actually quite interesting, how you see Scripture/Logos potentially replacing the Holy Spirit/Church in terms of a trusted source for interpretation. I don't know if it's accurate, but putting it together with how I've heard various people of different denominations along the spectrum talk, it seems to fit in and make a lot of sense.

 

[buzuxi02]

From what I understand is that the Orthodox east never accepted the filioque but grudgingly tolerated it in the Orthodox west until 1054. In 1054, the west tried to force compliance to the filioque on the east; that and other things created the eventual schism.

Sadly, the vast multitudes in the east or west had nothing to do with this but a few Latin clerics overstepped their bounds in 1054 ( not the pope even).

Not neccesarily, the Photian councils of the 9th century condemned the Filloioque. In 1009 AD when the Fillioque was permanently added to the creed in Rome, the popes name was dropped from the diptych of Constantinople. The 1054 excommunication came 45 years after the pope''s name had already been dropped from commemoration.

 

[truefiction1]

My response to you gets its own post

What you're saying about the pope filling the role as the guide and guardian of truth is what I was referring to in the OP. The way you articulated it though is new and provides extra detail so thanks! That sorta lets me see the way this could be applied in protestantism...

What I'm thinking about specifically (and this isn't a fully fleshed out or developed thought) is the idea of sola scriptura. Now, I'm going to deal with the Lutheran view here, which is quite different from your normal protestant. But here's my train of thought:
We know that the Spirit is the guide and guardian of the truth (John 16:13, 2 Timothy 1:14). Therefore, we can also say that it is the Spirit who protects the Church from errors (Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15). Luther (rightfully) saw errors in Rome during the 16th century. The pope was removed as the "undisputed guide, guardian and "Spirit of Truth"" as you put it, and so something was needed to fill in. Without a guide, how can we know what to believe? (NB: I realized after writing this that this is almost word for word what the Eunuch says in Acts 8:31 lol)
The answer to that was Scripture. How we understand the Logos is ultimately determined by, well, the Logos. We reject the council of florence which officially defines the Roman eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, so in theory we could still hold Orthodox beliefs on this, but because of the wording of the creed, I tend to think that we naturally assume that the Spirit proceeds in the same way from the Father as from the Son. So we in practice hold the Roman view, even if in theory we are ambiguous.
In any case, we have elevated the Logos above the Spirit because rather than trusting all the places where the Spirit has promised to work (through the Church, the Sacraments, and the Word), we only trust two of them (the Word and Sacraments). We elevate the Logos over the Spirit and thus supordinate the Spirit's role in preserving Christendom.
In other words, even if we don't dogmatize what "and the Son" means in the Nicene Creed, our other doctrines still lead to the error. The pope replaced the Holy Spirit (and the Church). We replaced the pope with Scripture. I'd still argue that we're better off than Rome in this case -- at least our final arbiter for doctrine is one of the ways the Spirit has promised to work and come to us, unlike the false idea of ex cathedra statements, infallibility of the pope, etc.

Does that sound correct or reasonable?

Of course, this still presents the problem of going against all the Church Father statements that seem to pretty clearly argue for Scripture alone (in the Lutheran understanding not the dreadful generic protestant view)... so again I'm at a slight impasse. (But twenty minutes ago when I first had these thoughts I realized for the first time, and actually articulated to myself that I just might be Orthodox and not Lutheran, which is a step beyond where I've been before (and am at this very instant lol) as a mere inquirer and someone with a like for orthodoxy)

Sorry for the long post

In the Roman Church, the Pope replaced the Spirit guided Church (i.e., the pope takes the place of the Logos, Who is no longer here in the world since His ascension). Christ promised that the Spirit would be the One to make His (Christ's) presence in the world a reality, not a vicar/pope. Later on, due to certain socio/cultural developments, many Christians began to sense that there was something not right about the Church and would tenaciously try to fix it. However, being that they were steeped in the same left-hemisphere bias as those they were rebelling against, they replaced the papacy and authority of the Church with the authority of the sacred written Word alone, (i.e., only the literal word is of value) and tossed out much of the Holy Tradition that is the metaphorical language of the Spirit -- which is the Life-Giving spiritual food and the "Stuff" of the right hemisphere. Iconography, solemn introits, chanted proclamations of the prophets, worshipful movements toward heaven, incense rising with prayers of the faithful to heaven, the heavenly beauty and God's Kingly majesty being seen in sparkling gold and fine linen of priestly garments and church decor... a Eucharistic meal that "really is the Living Christ"... not just a representation (in the sense that literal meanings of words are mere representations) of something that Christ did long ago... etc.

 

[buzuxi02]

The clearest ramifications of the Fillioque in the west is the demotion of the sole causality of the entire Trinity which is the Father.
We see this in the pseudo- Athanasian Creed. This has lead to so many non-trinitarian sects within western Christian branches. One only needs to go to General theology subforum where many non-trinitarian's argue against the Trinity by agreeing with the original Nicene Creed!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not neccesarily, the Photian councils of the 9th century condemned the Filloioque. In 1009 AD when the Fillioque was permanently added to the creed in Rome, the popes name was dropped from the diptych of Constantinople. The 1054 excommunication came 45 years after the pope''s name had already been dropped from commemoration.

and Rome agreed with the Photian Councils for almost 200 years

 

[~Anastasia~]

The clearest ramifications of the Fillioque in the west is the demotion of the sole causality of the entire Trinity which is the Father.
We see this in the pseudo- Athanasian Creed. This has lead to so many non-trinitarian sects within western Christian branches. One only needs to go to General theology subforum where many non-trinitarian's argue against the Trinity by agreeing with the original Nicene Creed!

As an aside, they are not allowed to do that in General Theology (or 95% of the forums on CF). But if no one reports it, no mods see it, it slips by.

I don't spend much time in GT anymore at any rate. But you're right - those threads that I end up having to address are nearly always about the Trinity.

 

[AMM]

In the Roman Church, the Pope replaced the Spirit guided Church (i.e., the pope takes the place of the Logos, Who is no longer here in the world since His ascension). Christ promised that the Spirit would be the One to make His (Christ's) presence in the world a reality, not a vicar/pope. Later on, due to certain socio/cultural developments, many Christians began to sense that there was something not right about the Church and would tenaciously try to fix it. However, being that they were steeped in the same left-hemisphere bias as those they were rebelling against, they replaced the papacy and authority of the Church with the authority of the sacred written Word alone, (i.e., only the literal word is of value) and tossed out much of the Holy Tradition that is the metaphorical language of the Spirit -- which is the Life-Giving spiritual food and the "Stuff" of the right hemisphere. Iconography, solemn introits, chanted proclamations of the prophets, worshipful movements toward heaven, incense rising with prayers of the faithful to heaven, the heavenly beauty and God's Kingly majesty being seen in sparkling gold and fine linen of priestly garments and church decor... a Eucharistic meal that "really is the Living Christ"... not just a representation (in the sense that literal meanings of words are mere representations) of something that Christ did long ago... etc.

Yes well FWIW Lutherans don't "toss out" iconography, introits, chants, bodily gestures in worship, incense, vestments, the Eucharist, etc. That being said, we did say that they were not "infallible" or binding on us or our practices, so perhaps you have a point. And of course, many protestants threw them out entirely, but don't lump us all together, as easy as it is

That said, I find the rest of your post very helpful and informative. Why do you think the western world placed such an emphasis on left-brain thinking, logic, etc.? Did we just embrace neoplatonism more, perhaps? Augustine was certainly a platonist, but so was Gregory Nazianzus so I'd be interested to hear what you think.

The clearest ramifications of the Fillioque in the west is the demotion of the sole causality of the entire Trinity which is the Father.
We see this in the pseudo- Athanasian Creed. This has lead to so many non-trinitarian sects within western Christian branches. One only needs to go to General theology subforum where many non-trinitarian's argue against the Trinity by agreeing with the original Nicene Creed!

So Filioque --> non-trinitarian heresies? I guess that makes sense...

Are you saying the pseudo-Athanasian Creed lead to heresies though? Of course, it does have the filioque clause, but it was written intentionally to defeat basically all trinitarian heresies like Sabellianism, Arianism, Partialism, etc.