The Trinity and the Filioque

[RhetorTheo]

Although the Universal, Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church was, before A.D.1054, united in a common Creed that confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeded "From the Father," certain circles in the West began to set forth the idea that the Spirit proceeded from both the "Father and the Son" (Filioque).

http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/answers/byzantine.htm

Can you please explain (a) whether Catholics are required to believe in the Filioque, (b) why the Church takes positions on the interworkings of the godhead, and (c) what difference does it make to a Catholics (and Orthodox) whether it proceeds from the Father alone or both the Father and the Son?

 

[Benedicta00]

If Jesus and God are one nature how can the Spirit not flow from them both??
I wonder. I believe it is the love of the Father and Son from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. We are called to imitate this same life giving love ourselves.

 

[pmarquette]

Although the Universal, Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church was, before A.D.1054, united in a common Creed that confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeded "From the Father," certain circles in the West began to set forth the idea that the Spirit proceeded from both the "Father and the Son" (Filioque).
......................................
Jesus is the Head of the Church , given authority by The Father , called to judge the quick and the dead ....

there is not a conflict , but a dichotomy of work , the Will of the Father , the church of Jesus , and the ministry of the Holy Spirit .

Jesus said he did nothing by himself , but did the will of He who sent him ( the Father ), by the power of the Holy Spirit

Or the Father creates , Jesus orchestrates , and the Holy Spirit makes it happen ...

 

[marciadietrich]

The Spirit is usually mentioned being sent by or of the Father in scripture, but in John 16 (verse 7 in particular) Christ says He will send the Spirit (Counseler, Helper, Paraclete or Advocate) after He returns to the Father. Romans 8:9 mentions the "Spirit of Christ" in context of the Spirit of God or Holy Spirit.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church #247 the filoque is not in the Creed confessed in Constantinople in 381 but that in 477 Pope Leo I confessed it dogmatically according to the Latin and Alexandrian tradition.

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

I thought there was a compromise between Orthodox and Catholic thought on this issue recently, a joint statement of sorts.

Marcia

 

[marciadietrich]

p.s. .... Also the reason it became a part of the Latin creed was in part due to a heresy in the West at the time trying to demean the nature of Christ. Either to say that Christ and the Spirit were lesser members of the Trinity or somehow outside it. Would have to research that. I believe the Orthodox opposition is on the principle that it isn't part of the original creeds wording and a desire to emphasize God the Father as the primary source, not a denial that the Spirit can proceed from the Son as well as the Father.

 

[MariaRegina]

Although the Universal, Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church was, before A.D.1054, united in a common Creed that confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeded "From the Father," certain circles in the West began to set forth the idea that the Spirit proceeded from both the "Father and the Son" (Filioque).
......................................
Jesus is the Head of the Church , given authority by The Father , called to judge the quick and the dead ....

there is not a conflict , but a dichotomy of work , the Will of the Father , the church of Jesus , and the ministry of the Holy Spirit .

Jesus said he did nothing by himself , but did the will of He who sent him ( the Father ), by the power of the Holy Spirit

Or the Father creates , Jesus orchestrates , and the Holy Spirit makes it happen ...

Emphasis mine.

Isn't that modalism? The Word of God is creative also. The Holy Spirit is every where present, isn't He?

Doesn't the All-Holy Trinity act as One? (Trinity in Unity) Isn't the action of the All-Holy Trinity a Holy Mystery which we should not attempt to define?

Isn't this precisely why the Pope prays the Nicene Creed without the filioque whenever he prays with Eastern Catholics or Eastern Orthodox?

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

CS Lewis in Mere Christianity really hits a homerun when he talks about the Holy Spirit coming from the Father and the Son. Let me find my book, and I'll post part of what he says.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Its too much to write, but if you have a copy of Mere Christianty (if you don't you NEED to get it), read pages 172-177.

CS Lewis rocks

 

[marciadietrich]

Its too much to write, but if you have a copy of Mere Christianty (if you don't you NEED to get it), read pages 172-177.

CS Lewis rocks

Jeffrey,

Depending on the printing those pages vary. For me that section is the end of one chapter going into the chapter called Counting the Cost.

Which section are you referring to? The one titled Making and Begetting or the Three-Personal God?

I dont recall anything I would say directly relates to filoque or not, but Lewis does a much better job than most explaining the Trinity.

Marcia

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Its the last part of his chapter: "Good Infection" using the 2 books on the table example.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Its the last part of his chapter: "Good Infection" using the 2 books on the table example.

Did you find it?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Emphasis mine.

Isn't that modalism? The Word of God is creative also. The Holy Spirit is every where present, isn't He?

Doesn't the All-Holy Trinity act as One? (Trinity in Unity) Isn't the action of the All-Holy Trinity a Holy Mystery which we should not attempt to define?

Isn't this precisely why the Pope prays the Nicene Creed without the filioque whenever he prays with Eastern Catholics or Eastern Orthodox?

No, it really isn't modalism . . modalism denies that there are 3 persons, one God . .rather modalism promotes that there is One God and 3 manifestations or modes which He switches between as the needs dictate . .

What was posted above does not advocate such an understanding . .

Peace in Him!

 

[MariaRegina]

If Jesus and God are one nature how can the Spirit not flow from them both??
I wonder. I believe it is the love of the Father and Son from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. We are called to imitate this same life giving love ourselves.

Isn't the sentence below considered Catholic teaching?

The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

Likewise the Holy Scriptures assert:

The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father.

We don't say that the Incarnate Word of God and the Holy Spirit both are eternally begotten of the Father, do we? Of course not.

 

[nyj]

The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father.

Through the Son. For it is written in Scripture (Luke 24:49): And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.

When understood in this fashion (from the Father, through the Son) the filoque becomes nothing but an argument without teeth, espoused by bitter members of Orthodoxy who can seemingly remember nothing past the sacking of Constantinople in the Middle Ages.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hi all

I would like to share some of what I have learned about this issue:

Here are some quotes I would like to share from The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy Letters to a Greek Othodox on the Unity of the Church by James Likoudis, a convert to Catholicism from Eastern Orthodoxy who is greatly desiring the unity of the East and West . .

1) What is the 'Fliloque'?

It is the Latin word meaning 'And the Son'. The word "Filioque' was inserted into the Nicene-Constantionpolitan Creed issued by the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. which professed the divinity of teh Holy spirit in these words:

"...and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life who proceeds from the Father."

By the fith century, various churches in the West began to insert the word 'filioque' into the Creed so that "qui ex Patre procedit" (who proceeds from the Father") became "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" (who proceeds from the Father and the Son". The Roman Church did not itslef officially insert 'Filioque' into its recitation of the Creed until 1014 A.D.

So the 'filioque' was not something that just appeared a millenium after the beginning of the church, but something that arose fairly early in the history of the Church. As has already been poitned out, the reason for the addition of the 'filioque' by the West was to combat heresies that were rising in the West . . Mr Likoudis explains this in more detail:

2. But Why Was This Insertion Made as Early as the 5th Cnetury?

It was inserted by Western theologians and local Councils to combat the heresies of Arianism, Adpotionism, and Priscillianism (emphasis mine)- all of which denied the divinity of Christ and the Holy spirit. Such heresies declared Christ essentially inferior to the Father. Western theologians and Spanish Councils began to insist that the Holy Spirit proceeded "ex Patre et Filio" or "ex Patre Filioque" ("from the Father and the Son") in order to stress the equality of the Son with the Father in the Blessed Trinity. The Arians regarded the Son as a creature;the Adoptionists regarded the Son as an adopted son of God. The followers of PRicillian denied the real distinction of the three Divine Persons. All denied that Christ was "God from God, Light form Light, true God from true God" as the original Nicene Creed of 325 had declared. Under the influence of that extraordinary genius St. Augustine of Hippo, Western theologians and loal Western councils in Spain, France England and Germany proclaimed the equality of Father and Son in the Godhead. If the Eternal Son did not participate equally in the Father's breathing forth of the Spirit from all eternity, then, as the heretics claimed, the Son was NOT equal to Him. The Son was inferior to the Father. The divinity of the Son was at stake. So, the 'Filioque' signifying that the Holy Spirit also proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father found its way into catechetical explanations of the Nicene-constantinopolitan Creed in the 5th century. In the next century, the 'Filioque' began to be recited or chanted as part of the Creed during Mass. As Yves Congar, O.P., autor of a momumental work on the Holy Spirit, noted:

"The 'Filioque' was probably added [to the Creed] during the last decade of the 6th century in Gaul and in Spain and it was accepted in good faith that it came from Nicaea-Constantinople."


​

Western theologians never considered the addition of the 'Filioue' to contradict the teaching of a Council which was, incidentally, a purely local Eastern Synod of 150 Bishops with no Wetsern Bishops present. The See of Rome was not present. This First Council of Constantinople did not begin to receive assured Ecumenical status until years later when a vote in the 4th session of the council of Chalcedon accepted its Creed as a rule of faith and when the Popes rgistered approval of Constantionple 1's dogmatic declarations.;

So, the question is why and how did a misunderating arise over the use of the 'filioque' by the west and cause such an issue between the East and West?

3) Future Controversy over the 'Filioque'

Unfortunately, for the peace and unity of the church, in the 8th and 9th centuries some of the Byzantine Greeks would seriously misunderstand the import and meaning of the Catholic doctrine on the Procession of the Holy spirit as it was refined and developed by such tehologians as St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Leo the Great, and St. Gregory the great. Catholic doctrine professing that the Holy Spirit proceeded from all eternity "from the Father AND the Son" (as held by Latin Fathers of the church) or that He proceeded eternally "from the Father THROUGH the Son" (as held by varoius Eatern Fathers) was to be misconstrued and even delcared heretical by the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople (c 820-897). Though after Photius' death, the controversy died down, it was revived when Cardinal Humbert blundered in accusing the Byzantines of dropping the 'Filioque' from the Creed in the sentence of excommunication against Michael Cerularius and his followers. He thereby revived the old and forgotten issue about the Procession of the Holy Spirit with the Byzantine Greeks who once again had recourse to Photius' polemic writings. The renewed disputes over the Procession of the Holy Spirit "from the Father and the Son" resulted in that dogma beoming the major dogmatic difference between Catholic and Byzantine dissidents for centures.

The question is, does this misunderstanding have any real relevance today? I remember when I was in the Orthodox Church that this was pointed out as major issue, that Roman Catholics had added to the Creed an error in saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son . . so much so that it is has been difficult for me to overcome that programming . . whenever we say the Creed, I automatically stop a the point of saying from the Father . . and many time simply fail to say "and the Son" .. it is an awkwared feeling indeed . .

It seems to me that the real issue of the 'Filioque' revolves completely around the understanding of what exactly is meant by it.

Photius attacked it on the grounds that he understood (wrongly) that the Latins were postulating two principles or causes in the Trinity and believing (wrongly) that the Latin Church was denying that the Father is the "Cause" or "Principim" of the Son and the Holy Spirit. But this was not what the Latin Church held to or taught or understood by the additoin of the 'Filioque'.

That Photius misunderstood what the Latin Church intended and meant by the 'Filioque' and that he went so far as to assert and claim that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father Alone appears to me to be very evident . . and his assertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father Alone is even in contrast to his own Eastern Fathers and to misconstrue their words . .

That his uncle and predecessor as Bishop of Constantiople, St Tarasius followed St. John of Damascus in holding to the understanding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son reveals how dramaticaly Photius departed even from the understanding of the Eastern Fathers of the Church who referred to an eternal procesion of teh Holy Spirit which involved the Son. . .

Likoudis notes:

The Russian Orthodox theologian Sergius Bulgakov (no friend of the Papacy) admitted that the PArtirarch Photius had readically separated himself from the partristic teaching of both East and West regaring the Procession of the Holy Spirit. Confesing in his "Mystagogy" that some of the Latin Fathers had indeed taught the 'Filioque', Photius had dared to place them in opposition to the Ecumenical Councisl and erroneously accused them of having misinterprete the Scriptures.

It seems that the issue regarding the 'Filioque' really arises with Photius and his writings that have been perpetuated through the centuries after the issue, which pretty much died out with the death of Photius, was resurrected when a Western Cardinal wrongly accused Byzantine Church of removing it from the Creed. . . and Photius' writings have contributed greatly to misunderstanding regarding the 'filioue' that has continued between East and West ever since. . .

The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity had even noted that Photius' rigid position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE was acceptable if the orthodox meaning was one that held that the Son was not totally exluded from His respective role in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.

The reunification council of Florence carries this statement in explanation of what the filioque means:

" . . .the Greeks have assured us that in saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they did not intend to exclude the Son, but it seemed to them, they say, that the Latins professed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son as from TWO PRINCIPLES and with TWO SPIRATIONS: that is why they abstained from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. To the contrary, the LAtins have declared that in saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, they did not intend to exclude the Father as if He were not the Source and Principle of the whole divinity, that is to say, the Source of the Son adn the Holy Spirit. Nor did they pretend that the Son did not hold from the Father precisely this, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Nor did they admit two Principes or two spirations. They affirm rather that there is only one unique Principle and only one spiration of the Holy Spirit, something they have always held." (cf. Joesph Gill, S.J., The Council of Foklrence, Cambridge University Press, 1959, pg 247)

Form eveyrthing that I have read, the 'filioque' should not really represent a point of contention as long as the Orthodox recognize what is meant by the West's use of it and as long as the Catholics recognize that the East's non-use of it does not deny Christ's role in the procession of the Holy Spirit . .

I am really sad that this became such an apparently unnecessary controversy that has led to much misunderstanding and posturing between the East and West . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Benedicta00]

Thanks Theresa. That was very good.

 

[marciadietrich]

[/b]Hi Jeffrey, I did find the section you were referring to in Mere Christianity. Thanks.

thereselittleflower ... nice post

 

[MariaRegina]

I just want clarification here:

Isn't there a difference between the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit and the Pentecostal sending of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Re: Pentecost

The Orthodox will agree with the Roman Catholics that the Holy Spirit was sent upon the Apostles and the Blessed Virgin Mary at Pentecost from the Father through the Son.

Re: Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit

This is where the two Churches differ.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I just want clarification here:

Isn't there a difference between the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit and the Pentecostal sending of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Re: Pentecost

The Orthodox will agree with the Roman Catholics that the Holy Spirit was sent upon the Apostles and the Blessed Virgin Mary at Pentecost from the Father through the Son.

Re: Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit

This is where the two Churches differ.

Chanter, I don't think this is really an issue . .

When this first became an issue during Photius' time, there were political issues running underneath his attack on the 'filioque' . .

Ignatius was replaced by Photius as Patriarch in 858 with the support of the Emeror Michael . . Ignatius had many followers who appealed the action to Rome and accused Photius as being a usurper and of having committed various crimes against Ignatius and his followers. There was also the issue of whose See (Constantinople's or Rome's) the newly converted Bulgarians would come under . . this is when the Patriarch Photius attacked the Frankish missionaries accusing them of liturgical and disiplinary impieties: fasting on Saturday, eatig dairy products in Lent, seeking to impose clerical celibacy, not allowing priest to confirm, etc . . and "they have even gone to the extreme limits of evil and have falsified the Creed in intorducing into it the 'Filioque'."

It is very interesting that Photius' attacks came centuries after the doctrine the 'filioque' expressed had already been held in the West while in full communion with the East . . if it was heretical now, why wasn't it hereitcal then? . . Why now? He attacked it in his famous "Letter to the Metropolitan of Aquilea" in 883 and in his last major work "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" . . It appears he even attacked Pope Nicholas 1 and accused him of numerous crimes and wanted him deposed and excommunicated. . This was the political climate in the Church at this time . .

The Fourth Council of Constantinople which is generally considered Eumenical in the West responded by giving a sharp condemnation of Photius as patriarch for usurping the See of Constantinople and for having dared to judge a Pope . .


That Eastern Fathers of the Church understood that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as well can be seen here:

[size=-1](1) St. Athanasius (d. 373), in at least three places, refers to the "dependence in origination of the Spirit in the Son." He uses the expression para tou Logou in:[/size]

[size=-1]--Contra Arian. III, 24 (PG 26, 376A) --Ad Ser. I, 20 (PG 26, 580A) --Id., III, 5 (PG 26, 632C).[/size]

[size=-1](2) St. Epiphanius (367-403) refers to the Spirit as proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son:[/size]

[size=-1]--Ancoratus, 6 (PG 43, 25C) --Id., 7 (PG 43, 28A) --Id., 11 (PG 43, 36C) --Id., 67 (PG 43, 137B) --Id., 73 (PG 43, 153A) --Id., 120 (PG 43, 236 B) --Panarion, Haer. LXII (PG 41, 1056)[/size]

[size=-1]He also said that the Spirit is ("has his consubstantial being") from the Father and the Son:[/size]

[size=-1]--Ancoratus, 8 (PG 43, 29C) --Id., 9 (PG 43, 32C) --Id., 67 (PG 43, 137B) --Id., 70 (PG 43, 148A) --Id., 71 (PG 43, 148B) --Id., 72 (PG 43, 152B) --Id., 75 (PG 43, 157A) --Panarion, Haer. LXIX, 54 (PG 42, 285D).[/size]

[size=-1](3) St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) used a great variety of formulae to express the relationship between the Spirit and the Son:[/size]

[size=-1]The Spirit is proper to the Son[/size]

[size=-1]--Comm. in Ioel XXXV (PG 71, 377D) --De recta fide ad Theod. XXXVII (PG 76, 1189A) --De SS. Trin. Dial. VII (PG 75, 1093A) --Comm. in Ioan. II (PG 71, 212B)[/size]

[size=-1]He comes from the Son[/size]

[size=-1]--see texts above[/size]

[size=-1]He proceeds from the Son[/size]

[size=-1]--Adv. Nest. IV, 1 (PG 76, 173A-B)[/size]

[size=-1]He proceeds from the Father and the Son[/size]

[size=-1]--De recta fide ad Reg. Or. alt. LI (PG 76, 1408B) --De ador. I (PG 68, 148A)[/size]

[size=-1]He proceeds from the Father through the Son[/size]

[size=-1]--De ador. I (PG 68, 148A) --Adv. Nest. IV, 3 (PG 76, 184D)[/size]

[size=-1](4) I have already cited the evidence from St. Maximus the Confessor for the "through the Son." He also used the expression: dia mesou tou Logou, "by means of the Word."--Quaestiones et dubia, Interr. XXXIV (PG 90, 813B).[/size]

[size=-1](5) There is more evidence from SS. Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus,

[/size]

From A Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue on Filioque
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ251.HTM

I don't believe there is really an issue of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit as distinct from the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and I don't believe the Eastern Fathers saw such a distinction . .



Peace in Him!

 

[prodromos]

Eirene, I have found that James Likoudis misrepresents the Orthodox position in the articles I have read. Have you read anything about Saint Photius or any of the letters he wrote? I can assure you that he was not one to misunderstand the position the latins took on the "filioque" at that time (which is not IMO the same position taken by the Catholic church today).

Honestly, I just read Likoudis' HISTORY OF THE BYZANTINE GRECO-SLAV SCHISM and I don't know whether to laugh or cry. According to his bio he is a former College Instructor in History and Government so presumeably he ought to know how to read history. That just makes his caricature of St. Photius all the more reprehensible. He would do well to read what Roman Catholic historian Francis Dvornik wrote of Saint Photius in 1948 (The Photian Schism).

John.