Filioque question

[StAnselm]

I realise most of you have answered this question dozens of times before, but...

What are the theological reasons why the Orthodox do not accept the Filioque clause ("and the Son") in the Nicene Creed?

Now, I understand that the clause was a later addition, and that is reason enough not to accept it. What I want to know is, why is it bad? What is the theology behind accepting or rejecting it?

 

[buzuxi02]

In Orthodoxy the hypostasis of both the Son and the Spirit originate from the Father. There is no 3 in 1. Only two in the One, who is the Father. We reject a double procession of the Holy Spirit. The Father is the sole source of the Spirit. as is the Son. "Andthe Son" would mean there are two sources of origin for the Spirit. 'Thru the Son" only occurs in time not eternally and probably not always.

The Son is begotten before all ages by the Father who is unbegotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone. The oneness of the godhead is from the hypostasis of the Father alone.

 

[prodromos]

See if you can pick up a copy of "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" by St Photius

 

[SaintPhotios]

I think the better question would be, what are the reasons for accepting the filioque? For a more thorough refutation of the filioque doctrine, I strongly recommend reading Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photios, my patron saint and one of the greatest theologians of the 9th century. This is a very complex issues, but I will summarize the main problems as quickly as I can.

The Fathers have all taught that God is one in essence and three in persons. But what is the difference between the essence and persons of God? The answer to this has been unwavering: In the Triune God, the essence is the singularity of God while the persons are the distinctions. To be clear, what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share is the essence of God, and is shared equally by all persons. Where the essence ends and the person begins is the unique characteristics of each person. The Son is generated, and the quality of generation is unique of the Son alone. What the Son has in common with the Father must also be common to all three, and thereby of the essence. For if there is a quality shared by two persons with exclusion of the third, then you have the qualifying factor comprising a person. So if the Son and the Father share a quality distinct of the Holy Spirit, then a "person" is manifested. However, there are only three persons, so it remains that the only acceptable Trinitarian method is that of the following: what is common is the essence, and what is distinct are the persons.

So the filioque suggests that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father. First of all, there is the obvious problem of persons. If the quality of filiation is shared by both the Father and the Son, then it cannot be a personal quality, but of the essence. But if it is of the essence, then it must also be shared by the Holy Spirit. But this would result in the absurd concept of the Holy Spirit proceeding from Himself. So either the filioque denies the essence/person distinction, confusing the Trinity, or it requires that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Himself, and absurd concept which removes the Father as the "fount of Divinity". Both of which are heretical.

This doctrine also causes problem because while it ignores the essence/personal distinction in suggesting that the Father and Son alone possess the quality of filiation without the Spirit (thereby compromising a Person that the filioquists reject despite the logical requirement to do so), it causes the Holy Spirit to be less in Divinity than the Father and the Son. And I think this point is the least complex and easiest to understand for the filioquist. You have the essence, which all three Persons possess. And then you have the distinctions between the Three that is peculiar to each Person. But the filioque tags on an additional relationship between the Father and the Son that the Holy Spirit is not involved with. So according to the filioque, the Father and the Son have a sub-essence/extra-personal bond that places them closer together in their relationship and applies greater Divinity to them than is given to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit owes its procession to both the Father and the Son, and there is no longer equality of persons in the Trinity.

There are many more problems with the filioque that are every bit as problematic as what I've just shown. Like I said, I suggest reading St. Photios' Mystagogy which treats this issue in great detail. It should be noted that the Fathers have always agreed on the economic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. And that is represented by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. But the West has taken this even further and suggested not only is the procession economical, but eternal -- that is, the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son, which is a grave heresy. And it is utterly opposed to the monarchia of the Father which has always been the very foundation of Trinitarian theology. Not to mention, the filioque was only introduced into the Creed in the West primarily in Spain to battle lingering elements of Arianism. We are bound to accept the unanimous teaching of the Fathers. The overwhelming popular belief of the Fathers is that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone.


(note: For those unaware, Athanasius never taught the filioque. Roman Catholics like to cite the Athanasian Creed as evidence that he did. But it has been conclusively proven and accepted by both sides that this was a forged document originating in Gaul over 100 years after Athanasius' death -- written in Latin no less)

 

[StAnselm]

Thank you. This was exactly what I was after. I may have to read over SaintPhotios' post a few times, though!

 

[SaintPhotios]

Thank you. This was exactly what I was after. I may have to read over SaintPhotios' post a few times, though!

I apologize. I tried to be as clear as possible, but admittedly, it's a very complex issue and I merely scratched the surface.

EDIT: Anselm - you might want to clear your inbox, I've been trying to pm you.

 

[xristos.anesti]

Also,

Canon VII of the Holy Imperial Council - the Third Ecumenical at Ephesus in AD 431 which states:

These things having been read aloud, the holy Council then decreed that no one should be permitted to offer any different belief or faith, or in any case to write or compose any other, than the one defined by the Holy Fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea, with Holy Spirit.

As for those who dare either to compose a different belief or faith, or to present one, or to offer one to those who wish to return to recognition of the truth, whether they be Greeks or Jews, or they be members of any heresy whatever, they, if Bishops or Clergymen, shall be deprived as Bishops of their Episcopate, and as Clergymen of their Clericate; but if they are Laymen, they shall be anathematized.

In an equally applicable way, if any persons be detected or caught, whether Bishops or Clergymen or Laymen, in the act of believing or teaching the things embodied in the exposition (or dissertation) presented by Charisius the Presbyter concerning the inhomination (i.e., incarnation) of the Only-begotten Son of God, or, by any chance, the unholy and perverse dogmas of Nestorius, which have even been subjoined, let them stand liable to the judgment of this holy and Ecumenical Council.

As a consequence, that is to say, the Bishop shall be deprived of his Episcopate, and be left deposed from office, while the Clergyman likewise forfeit his Clericate. If, on the other hand, any such person be a Layman, let him too be anathematized, as aforesaid.

 

[SaintPhotios]

Canon VII of the Holy Imperial Council - the Third Ecumenical at Ephesus in AD 431 which states:

I agree... but the Romanist or Protestant simply responds to that by saying, "It doesn't say the creed can't be added to, it simply says that a different faith can't be professed. The filioque is merely clarifying what was already believed by Nicea"

Now... I think we can all agree that it's a weak argument. But that's what they'll say. In my experience, no filioquist is ever satisfied with citing Ephesus. It's unfortunate... especially Rome, it makes a mockery of sacred tradition.

 

[paleodoxy]

The Fourth Coucil and subsequent councils reaffirm this sentiment from Ephesus, and it may be the language is even stronger. I'll go back and find it, unless someone else beats me to it.

 

[paleodoxy]

This is pretty explicit, from Chalcedon:

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

 

[jckstraw72]

doesnt one of the councils say the Creed is perfect and complete? ive heard that before ...

 

[paleodoxy]

jackstraw,

This may be what you're thinking of, again from Chalcedon:

Therefore, whilst we also stand by

• the decisions and all the formulas relating to the creed from the sacred synod which took place formerly at Ephesus,
  • whose leaders of most holy memory were Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria

we decree that

• pre-eminence belongs to the exposition of the right and spotless creed of the 318 saintly and blessed fathers who were assembled at Nicaea when Constantine of pious memory was emperor: and that
• those decrees also remain in force which were issued in Constantinople by the 150 holy fathers in order to destroy the heresies then rife and to confirm this same catholic and apostolic creed.
  • The creed of the 318 fathers at Nicaea.
  • And the same of the 150 saintly fathers assembled in Constantinople.

This wise and saving creed, the gift of divine grace, was sufficient for a perfect understanding and establishment of religion. For its teaching about the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit is complete, and it sets out the Lord's becoming human to those who faithfully accept it.