The Filioque: What does Rome believe?

[Reader Antonius]

Dear brethren,

I am curious as to what y'all believe the filioque signifies in Roman theology? In other words, what do you believe that we believe?



In Christ,

Antonius Ioannes

 

[Lukaris]

An imbalance in the understanding of the blessed Holy Trinity. In Isaiah 48:16: "Come near to me and hear this: Ihave not spoken in secret from the beginning, nor did Ispeak in a dark place of the earth.When it took place, I was there, and now the Lord and His Spirit have sent Me." (Orthodox Study Bible (OSB), transl). The footnotes clearly refer to this as a reference to the Holy Trinity and the understanding and wording point to the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Centuries following the Aryan controversy, a well intentioned, but mistaken, understanding of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father & Son is developed but not fully abused until used as political leverage centuries after to claim absolute authority in one patriarch over others. In English Bibles there is no evidence of a filioque in this passage. The Douay Rheims,"Come ye near unto me and hear this:I have not spoken in secret from the beginning from the time before it was done, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent me and his spirit." (similar in Revised Standard VErsion) are not as well translated as the OSB but cannot be construed differently than "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified." (the Creed). The passage in the OSB corresponds with the Trinitarian expression in the KIng James & New King James Bibles and since these originate from Protestants who also profess the filioque in the Creed there is no inherent conflict between the Catholic and Protestant English translations just a theological misunderstanding shared by both. Finally, as the Church understands the words of our Saviour, "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." (John 15:26). As per an Orthodox catechism of the Creed, Q. # 84: From whom does the Holy Spirit proceed? A. As Jesus Christ said (John 15:26), the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. (from a Catechism of the Christian doctrine of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese w. the imprimatur of the late Antony Bashir, c. 1949). "We regard the Father as unoriginate and as the source: as unoriginate because He is unbegotten, and as the source because He is the begetter of the Son and the sender forth of the Holy Spirit, both of whom are by essence from Him and in Him from all eternity." (St. Thalassios, 4 c texts, #92, Philokalia, vol. II). St. Thalassios was a contemporary of St. Maximos the Confessor.

 

[Reader Antonius]

An imbalance in the understanding of the blessed Holy Trinity. In Isaiah 48:16: "Come near to me and hear this: Ihave not spoken in secret from the beginning, nor did Ispeak in a dark place of the earth.When it took place, I was there, and now the Lord and His Spirit have sent Me." (Orthodox Study Bible (OSB), transl). The footnotes clearly refer to this as a reference to the Holy Trinity and the understanding and wording point to the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Centuries following the Aryan controversy, a well intentioned, but mistaken, understanding of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father & Son is developed but not fully abused until used as political leverage centuries after to claim absolute authority in one patriarch over others. In English Bibles there is no evidence of a filioque in this passage. The Douay Rheims,"Come ye near unto me and hear this:I have not spoken in secret from the beginning from the time before it was done, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent me and his spirit." (similar in Revised Standard VErsion) are not as well translated as the OSB but cannot be construed differently than "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified." (the Creed). The passage in the OSB corresponds with the Trinitarian expression in the KIng James & New King James Bibles and since these originate from Protestants who also profess the filioque in the Creed there is no inherent conflict between the Catholic and Protestant English translations just a theological misunderstanding shared by both. Finally, as the Church understands the words of our Saviour, "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." (John 15:26). As per an Orthodox catechism of the Creed, Q. # 84: From whom does the Holy Spirit proceed? A. As Jesus Christ said (John 15:26), the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. (from a Catechism of the Christian doctrine of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese w. the imprimatur of the late Antony Bashir, c. 1949).

With all due respect, you did not answer my question brother.

What is the theological error that Rome believes?

 

[Machachachi]

Forgive me, but what benefit does this conversation have? There are already many wonderful books out there that discuss these things. Furthermore, we are not priests here, if you truly wish to understand the Orthodox position on these matters, please go discuss them with an Orthodox priest.

We are all layman here, these discussion will cause nothing but trouble for us. Orthodoxy is not against Rome, we may think that Rome is schismatic but that does not mean we have any feelings of condemnation for them, and if we do, Lord Have Mercy!

 

[Lukaris]

Among the theological error is 1. "This novel opinion (filioque)destroys the oneness from the one cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel. 2. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power & equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations with a confusion or commingling of them." 2 subheadings in the 5th provision of the 1848 Encyclical of the Patriarchs. Again, I want to emphasize that I am not posting in a sense of legalism and judging other Christians or questioning any individual's salvation but to speak in truth and humility as best I can.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Forgive me, but what benefit does this conversation have?

I seek to better understand lay Orthodox opinion on what exactly Rome teaches about the filioque that is heretical.

We are all layman here, these discussion will cause nothing but trouble for us.

Whether or not there is trouble is based on the intention my brother.

 

[Reader Antonius]

1. "This novel opinion (filioque)destroys the oneness from the one cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.

So, is it your belief that the Roman Church believes that the Holy Spirit's procession does not originate in the Father alone?

2. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power & equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations with a confusion or commingling of them."

This might make sense if it was Latin Catholic teaching that the orgin of the Holy Spirit's procession is from the Father and the Son.

I would also point out that if the contention by the synod above was to say that the the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (i.e. the Son having no role in the procession whatsoever) then the Holy Fathers themselves should equally be accused of introducing "diverse and unequal relations with a confusion or comingling of them."

 

[Lukaris]

So, is it your belief that the Roman Church believes that the Holy Spirit's procession does not originate in the Father alone?



This might make sense if it was Latin Catholic teaching that the orgin of the Holy Spirit's procession is from the Father and the Son.

I would also point out that if the contention by the synod above was to say that the the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (i.e. the Son having no role in the procession whatsoever) then the Holy Fathers themselves should equally be accused of introducing "diverse and unequal relations with a confusion or comingling of them."

Careful here, remember the Son became "incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary" (Creed) so from where else would the Holy Spirit proceed? Also recall the Son (Jesus Christ) himself says that he would send the Helper (Holy Spirit) in John 15:26 & obviously makes no reference to the Holy Spirit proceeding from other than the Father. Also please be careful in making an inference to "accuse" the holy fathers of commingling or what have you. Despite theological differences, I personally have high regard for Pope Benedict & the late John Paul II & even Bill Graham for that matter. I am logging off at this point & cannot reply for a couple days. God bless.

 

[Machachachi]

I seek to better understand lay Orthodox opinion on what exactly Rome teaches about the filioque that is heretical.



Whether or not there is trouble is based on the intention my brother.

Good intentions have led many to death, and many more to falsehood. I doubt there is any cult leader out there in the world that had bad intents from the start. Additionally, what the lay Orthodox opinion of Rome and its teachings are, is completely inconsequential, what the Orthodox Church on the other hand teaches is far more useful and relevant. If the lay person believes that all RC's are space aliens(no offense), that opinion while interesting, hardly reflects what is right or even true.

You cannot get to the bottom of a well, by talking to thirsty people. You must get into the bucket and lower yourself down into the well. Only then can you know what is there.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Careful here, remember the Son became "incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary" (Creed) so from where else would the Holy Spirit proceed?

The origin of the procession could only be from the Father alone. Amen.

Also recall the Son (Jesus Christ) himself says that he would send the Helper (Holy Spirit) in John 15:26 & obviously makes no reference to the Holy Spirit proceeding from other than the Father.

But He said that HE would send the Parakletos. I agree wholeheartedly that the source of the procession of the Helper is only the Father. However I would contend that the Son plays a role in the procession itself.

I am logging off at this point & cannot reply for a couple days. God bless.

God be with you then and may He bless you my brother.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Good intentions have led many to death, and many more to falsehood. I doubt there is any cult leader out there in the world that had bad intents from the start.

Additionally, what the lay Orthodox opinion of Rome and its teachings are, is completely inconsequential,

Why? Part of the problems between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is the simple truth that we do not understand the facts concerning one another.

what the Orthodox Church on the other hand teaches is far more useful and relevant.

And what is Orthodox teaching? Where should I look to find something more than the opinion of lay or even hierarchal Orthodox? Where do I look to find, unequivocally, the teaching of the Orthodox Church (as one Church).

If the lay person believes that all RC's are space aliens(no offense), that opinion while interesting, hardly reflects what is right or even true.

Of course not. However dialogue and discussion help to elucidate what the facts of our respective beliefs are.

You must get into the bucket and lower yourself down into the well. Only then can you know what is there.

How does one get into the well? Perhaps a better question: Where is the well?

Peace be with you brother!

 

[Machachachi]

I had written a response, but it got eaten by my network. So this is a new one.

The differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and the discussions of those differences have been going on for close to one thousand years now. Those discussions are even documented, and there is not as much misunderstanding as one would like to believe.

The simple truth of the matter is, their is schism. Schisms occur for a number of reasons, the reasons for this schism, can be associated with the filoque, but in the end there are deeper issues, some even fundamental. I would encourage you to talk to an Orthodox Priest about these things, this may seem strange, but they really are much more qualified to discuss these issues.

I would argue that the well is Orthodoxy itself. And it is a deep well indeed. And there are many things in this life that keep you from even reaching the well itself, much less beginning to lower your self down it, or up it, if you prefer it that way :-D. I can only argue from experience, that in my life before there was death, and now there is life, and the old life is passing away, that is my testament about Orthodoxy, that it is not so much about what we believe, but about what we do.

 

[Reader Antonius]

I had written a response, but it got eaten by my network. So this is a new one.

Don't ya hate that.

The simple truth of the matter is, their is schism. Schisms occur for a number of reasons, the reasons for this schism, can be associated with the filoque, but in the end there are deeper issues, some even fundamental.

Fundamental in what way?

I would argue that the well is Orthodoxy itself.

But what is Orthodoxy? With so many different viewpoints among Orthodox clergy and laity and no unanimously agreed upon Council post-schism, how are we to know what Orthodoxy is...that is as it is defined by those who are in the Eastern Orthodox communion?

I can only argue from experience, that in my life before there was death, and now there is life, and the old life is passing away, that is my testament about Orthodoxy, that it is not so much about what we believe, but about what we do.

This is also an excellent testimony to my own experience in becoming Catholic, and of Catholic Christianity itself:

"It is not so much what we believe, but what we do."

God's blessings go with you brother.

 

[Machachachi]

I'm going to bow out now, I can only recommend you ask a priest, I am not an expert on these matters. As a parting statement, I think for what Orthodoxy believe you can look to the first seven ecumenical councils. And the traditions passed down from the Apostles which I'm sure you are familiar with.

 

[Reader Antonius]

As a parting statement, I think for what Orthodoxy believe you can look to the first seven ecumenical councils. And the traditions passed down from the Apostles which I'm sure you are familiar with.

The traditions as expressed in the Holy Fathers and the teachings of the first seven ecumenical Councils were what made me Catholic.

God bless your journey my brother.

 

[27B6]

Dear brethren,

I am curious as to what y'all believe the filioque signifies in Roman theology? In other words, what do you believe that we believe?



In Christ,

Antonius Ioannes

I am but an inquirer into the Orthodox faith, so I wouldn't presume to give an answer to this question. However, in my inquiry over the years I have come across many books that address this question, among other issues. Two that have helped me understand the Orthodox view of the Filioque controversy are Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, and The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky. Those are just two books I have read, there are, I am sure, others that are also good.

As with all theological discussions on the nature of the Godhead, the issues are mysterious and complex, and not easily discussed in casual forums such as this. I recommend, if you truly desire to understand the Orthodox view of these sorts of things, that you take the time to read books such as I listed above, or seek out an Orthodox priest.

With love in Christ.

 

[Reader Antonius]

I am but an inquirer into the Orthodox faith, so I wouldn't presume to give an answer to this question. However, in my inquiry over the years I have come across many books that address this question, among other issues. Two that have helped me understand the Orthodox view of the Filioque controversy are Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, and The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky. Those are just two books I have read, there are, I am sure, others that are also good.

As with all theological discussions on the nature of the Godhead, the issues are mysterious and complex, and not easily discussed in casual forums such as this. I recommend, if you truly desire to understand the Orthodox view of these sorts of things, that you take the time to read books such as I listed above, or seek out an Orthodox priest.

With love in Christ.

I am not seeking to understand the Orthodox position my brother. I am seeking to grasp the lay Orthodox understanding of what Rome teaches concerning the filioque and what is heretical about it.

 

[Machachachi]

I said I was going to bow out, but I shall bite one more time. If you want to find out what Orthodox people believe, you must find out what the Orthodox Church believes, and to find that out with as few mistakes as possible, you should talk to a priest.

The real question is, if you do just want to know my opinion, why do you want to know it?

 

[Reader Antonius]

you must find out what the Orthodox Church believes,

How can I truly know what Orthodoxy believes and teaches?

and to find that out with as few mistakes as possible, you should talk to a priest.

Hmmm, but priests among the Orthodox disagree.

The real question is, if you do just want to know my opinion, why do you want to know it?

What I want to know is more than your opinion, rather it is what you believe the Catholic believes when we say in the Credo at Mass "proceeds from the Father and the Son."

It is not enough to say it is heretical, I want to know why and I want to know this from lay Orthodox, not Orthodox scholars.

 

[27B6]

What I want to know is more than your opinion, rather it is what you believe the Catholic believes when we say in the Credo at Mass "proceeds from the Father and the Son."

It is not enough to say it is heretical, I want to know why and I want to know this from lay Orthodox, not Orthodox scholars.

I'm sorry, this just sounds like fishing for an argument.

You say you want to know what lay people think, without apparently caring what the saints teach? That doesn't sound at all like an even 'Catholic' approach. Fishing on the Internet is, in my experience, the worst way to find out what lay people think in any communion, because it is totally unrepresentative. If you want to know, you need to begin visiting an Orthodox community and actually make the effort to get to know them as people, not disembodied personalities.

I suspect what you will find is that the vast majority of Orthodox think little or nothing about the filioque. Why should they? They have the faith as stated in the Nicean creed and affirmed through seven major Councils and in the liturgy, not a modification that was never approved by an ecumenical council of the whole Church and which even a great Pope opposed. Why should they have any opinion about such things at all, except that they are not Orthodox? They are too busy just working out their own salvation in fear and trembling, as am I.

Lord have mercy.