The Filioque

[TSIBHOD]

I was just reading a bit in a thread that mentioned the Filioque clause, and it brings a question to my mind. Why is this a really important issue that divides Orthodox and Catholics? I haven't really considered this issue in depth before, but I would like some opinions from you all about why it is a big deal. What are the implications of including or not including it? How does it change the rest of your theology? Also, what evidence would you all say shows that your position (which is the absence of the Filioque) is correct?

Thanks in advance for your efforts in helping me understand this issue. :)

[Konstantinos]

The True Nicene Creed was Formed at an Ecumenical Council of the church bishops from east and west. We Believe the Holy Spirit Acended Down and was there when the Council Was Happening. Therefore for the Catholics to add a word goes against Our Belief. and is Heresy.

[Oblio]

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
(John 15:26 KJVA)

[Konstantinos]

:amen: or you could just cite that:blush:

[Philip]

What are the implications of including or not including it? How does it change the rest of your theology?

It does effect our understanding of the Trinity, and thus all of our theology. At the simplist level, we see it as diminishing the position of the Spirit in the Trinity. There are many other implications, most of which escape me.

Also, what evidence would you all say shows that your position (which is the absence of the Filioque) is correct?


Do you mean that our position is the correct one? See Oblio's post. Do you mean that the Filioque was not part of the Creed originially? I believe even Rome accepts that.

[Lotar]

The doctrine of the Trinity is One God, three Persons. So, every attribute must be shared by all three or unique to one, otherwise the distiction between two is blurred and/or one is diminished.

So:
The Son is begotten of the Father.
The Spirit proceeds from the Father.
And the Father is the source.

Making the Son as well as the Father the source diminishes the Spirit, as two members of the Trinity share an attribute it does not have. Which may be a reason behind why the Holy Spirit is often spoken of as more of an attribute or power of God, than a person.

[Maximus]

It is important to remember also that the Father is the sole Source and Fountainhead of the Holy Trinity, although all Three Persons are consubstantial and co-eternal.

I think it is possible to reconcile the Latin and Orthodox views on the procession of the Holy Spirit if both parties agree to accept the patristic idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

One of the big problems with the filioque - besides the fact that it is subject to an erroneous interpretation - was the unilateral way in which it was inserted into the Nicene Creed in the West.

As I recall, the Fathers of the 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) decided that the Creed could no longer be altered. Am I off on that (I'm working from memory)?

At any rate, it certainly should not be altered without benefit of an ecumenical council.

[Philip]

As I recall, the Fathers of the 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) decided that the Creed could no longer be altered. Am I off on that (I'm working from memory)?


I thought it was the Second.

[moses916]

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8066.asp

[Matrona]

I thought it was the Second.
No, it was the third.

The actual, original Nicene Creed had "And in the Holy Spirit," and ended with an anathema on the Arians. It was mainly derived from the creed of Caesarea, IIRC.

At Constantinople, the anathema was removed, and the rest of the creed that we know was added: "the Lord and giver of life," etc.

At Ephesus, it was decreed that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed could not be altered further outside of an Ecumenical Council.

[MariaRegina]

It is important to remember also that the Father is the sole Source and Fountainhead of the Holy Trinity, although all Three Persons are consubstantial and co-eternal.

I think it is possible to reconcile the Latin and Orthodox views on the procession of the Holy Spirit if both parties agree to accept the patristic idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.


Dear Maximus:

Some thoughts to consider:

Wasn't this patristic idea (through the Son) only held by two or three of the Early Church Fathers, not a majority? Otherwise, why didn't the Holy Ecumenical Council give the following wording to the Creed: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Furthermore, the Holy Scriptures didn't mention "through the Son" when referring to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.

Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

p.s. A Melkite Bishop was hoping that the RCC would accept the Orthodox Creed without the Filioque with the understanding that 'through the Son' would be understood as an acceptable belief.

[Maximus]

Dear Maximus:

Some thoughts to consider:

Wasn't this patristic idea (through the Son) only held by two or three of the Early Church Fathers, not a majority? Otherwise, why didn't the Holy Ecumenical Council give the following wording to the Creed: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Nicea I didn't deal with every possible issue. If it had, we would not have needed six more councils.

The Fathers who did speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son were fairly prominent. I don't think anyone has contradicted them. One of them was St. Maximus the Confessor.

Furthermore, the Holy Scriptures didn't mention "through the Son" when referring to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.

That's because, as I understand it, "through the Son" does not have to do with the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone, but we receive Him through the Son.

I have even read Latin writers who have explained the filioque in this manner, although I am not sure that all Latins would agree.

John 20:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=22&version=50&context=verse)
And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

John 14:15-18
15"If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

John 14:23-28
23Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me. 25"These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 27Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28You have heard Me say to you, "I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&version=50&context=chapter#fen-NKJV-26694e)] "I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.

Romans 8:9
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.


Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

p.s. A Melkite Bishop was hoping that the RCC would accept the Orthodox Creed without the Filioque with the understanding that 'through the Son' would be understood as an acceptable belief.

Again, I think it is possible to interpret the filioque in an Orthodox way.

The problem with it is that it is also highly subject to an erroneous interpretation. It's not specific enough.

It was also inserted into the Creed without the approval of the entire Church in council.

[MariaRegina]

Nicea I didn't deal with every possible issue. If it had, we would not have needed six more councils.

The Fathers who did speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son were fairly prominent. I don't think anyone has contradicted them. One of them was St. Maximus the Confessor.



That's because, as I understand it, "through the Son" does not have to do with the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone, but we receive Him through the Son.

I have even read Latin writers who have explained the filioque in this manner, although I am not sure that all Latins would agree.

John 20:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=22&version=50&context=verse)
And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

John 14:15-18
15"If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

John 14:23-28
23Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me. 25"These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 27Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28You have heard Me say to you, "I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&version=50&context=chapter#fen-NKJV-26694e)] "I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.

Romans 8:9
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.




Again, I think it is possible to interpret the filioque in an Orthodox way.

The problem with it is that it is also highly subject to an erroneous interpretation. It's not specific enough.

It was also inserted into the Creed without the approval of the entire Church in council.


There is a big difference between the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father

and the temporal proceeding of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and Chrismation upon the Apostles and us.

[Maximus]

There is a big difference between the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father

and the temporal proceeding of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and Chrismation upon the Apostles and us.

Of course.

The Orthodox Fathers who wrote that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son would not have disagreed.

As I said in my several posts on this subject, the Father is the sole Source and Fountainhead of the Holy Trinity.

I know it's a limited analogy, but it is somewhat helpful to think in terms of the Sun.

The Father is kind of like the Sun itself. The light of the Sun is like the Word, and the heat of the Sun is like the Holy Spirit. You cannot have any one of the three without the others, but the Sun is the source of all of them.

Again, it's a limited analogy and should not be analyzed to death.

[TSIBHOD]

The doctrine of the Trinity is One God, three Persons. So, every attribute must be shared by all three or unique to one, otherwise the distiction between two is blurred and/or one is diminished.

So:
The Son is begotten of the Father.
The Spirit proceeds from the Father.
And the Father is the source.

Making the Son as well as the Father the source diminishes the Spirit, as two members of the Trinity share an attribute it does not have. Which may be a reason behind why the Holy Spirit is often spoken of as more of an attribute or power of God, than a person.
That is an interesting point.

Since the Orthodox do not accept the Filioque, does that mean that you all don't accept the Athanasian Creed? The text I have says, "The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created: but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten: but proceeding."

So do I understand that the Orthodox agree with the statement that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son"?

Now, John 15:26 has been given as evidence for the doctrinal inaccuracy of the Filioque clause, but Catholics, I suppose, would have a different interpretation of this verse. I think your interpretation may be correct, but I'd like to see what you would say in reply to how the other side thinks. Wayne Grudem wrote this in Systematic Theology:

In spite of the fact that John 15:26 says that the Spirit of truth "proceeds from the Father," this does not deny that he proceeds also from the Son (just as John 14:26 says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit, but John 16:7 says that the Son will send the Holy Spirit). In fact, in the same sentence in John 15:26 Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as one "whom I shall send to you from the Father." And if the Son together with the Father sends the Spirit into the world, by analogy it would seem appropriate to say that this reflects eternal ordering of their relationships. This is not something that we can clearly insist on based on any specific verse, but much of our understanding of the eternal relationships among the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit comes by analogy from what Scripture tells us about the way they relate to the creation in time.

Thanks for the replies so far. I'm not exactly sure which way I lean on this issue, but I think your side does make sense. So that's why I want to get your thoughts on some things the other side might say.

:)

[TSIBHOD]

The Father is kind of like the Sun itself. The light of the Sun is like the Word, and the heat of the Sun is like the Holy Spirit. You cannot have any one of the three without the others, but the Sun is the source of all of them.
That's a neat analogy. I like it.

[Matrona]

So do I understand that the Orthodox agree with the statement that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son"?

I don't. I think that statement is much too loosely worded to be acceptable. There's a reason that Orthodox are characterized as being verbose. :)

[Michael the Iconographer]

So do I understand that the Orthodox agree with the statement that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son"?



No. That reduces God to a mere hierarchy!

[Maximus]

"Just as the Holy Spirit on account of his nature exists according to the essence of God the Father, so he exists on account of his nature according to the essence of the Son, insofar as he has proceeded essentially from the Father through the Son" (St. Maximus the Confessor, Patrologia Graeca, 90:672).

[MariaRegina]

"Just as the Holy Spirit on account of his nature exists according to the essence of God the Father, so he exists on account of his nature according to the essence of the Son, insofar as he has proceeded essentially from the Father through the Son" (St. Maximus the Confessor, Patrologia Graeca, 90:672).

This seems to talk about the eternal procession. How many other Church Fathers talked about this besides Maximus the Confessor and Augustine?

[Lotar]

This seems to talk about the eternal procession. How many other Church Fathers talked about this besides Maximus the Confessor and Augustine?

St. Ambrose of Milan, and St. Hilary of Pointiers

[Maximus]

This seems to talk about the eternal procession. How many other Church Fathers talked about this besides Maximus the Confessor and Augustine?

I'll have to look up some references. I used to know them, but I haven't thought about this for awhile, so I've forgotten.

St. Maximus was not saying the Son is the cause or source of the Holy Spirit. He was saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son; that is, He is communicated to the Son from the Father eternally.

I am not an expert in Greek, but as I understand it, St. Maximus' expression was dia mesou tou Logou: "by means of the Word."

[Maximus]

I realize Tertullian is not recognized as a saint, but the writings from his Orthodox Catholic days are pretty valuable in showing us what was believed by the Church, especially since he lived in the late 2nd century. Here's some of what he wrote.

"I believe the Holy Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas, 4:1).

Origen, too, while he eventually lapsed into heresy, is a valuable source of information on the beliefs of early Christians. He wrote:

"We believe, however, that there are three Persons, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John, 2:6).

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (A.D. 213 - c. 275) wrote in his The Creed:

"And one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested - to men, that is (1) - through the Son; Image of the Son, Perfect of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of living; Holy Fountain . . ."

St. Hilary of Poitiers (c. A.D. 315 - 368) wrote:

"In the fact that before times eternal Your Only-begotten Son was born of You, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: He was born. So too, even if I do not grasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that Your Holy Spirit is from You through Him" (The Trinity, 12:56).

[Matrona]

Origen, too, while he eventually lapsed into heresy, is a valuable source of information on the beliefs of early Christians. He wrote:

"We believe, however, that there are three Persons, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John, 2:6).

Your other three quotes don't negate the idea that the Spirit is sent temporally through the Son and that the Spirit's eternal source is the Father alone--the quotes leave open the possibility, but having four church fathers who believe something, does not make it dogma.

the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ

Notice that application of time to the Trinity?

It sounds awfully Arian to me--it's just being applied to the Spirit, not the Son.

[gtsecc]

At any rate, it certainly should not be altered without benefit of an ecumenical council.
Yep.
Word is that the next Book of Common Prayer will remove it.
Either way, most of my Anglican friends, who would care one way or the other, agree that it should be dropped.

[Maximus]

Your other three quotes don't negate the idea that the Spirit is sent temporally through the Son and that the Spirit's eternal source is the Father alone--the quotes leave open the possibility, but having four church fathers who believe something, does not make it dogma.



Notice that application of time to the Trinity?

It sounds awfully Arian to me--it's just being applied to the Spirit, not the Son.

I am not defending Origen, but his remark about the Holy Spirit being "first in order" isn't necessarily an application of time to the Holy Trinity, any more than the reference to the Son in Scripture as "the firstborn of every creature" (Col. 1:15) and begotten (John 3:16) are.

The Father does produce the Son and the Holy Spirit, but in an eternal production (I know that's not the best word, but it's Origen's). In other words, there are Father Son Holy Spirit, not Father - lapse in time - Son - lapse in time - Holy Spirit.

Again, the analogy of the Sun that I used earlier is a good one (I think).

SUN LIGHT HEAT: a single three-fold package. Can't have one without the others; can't separate them in time either.

I don't think you will find any Orthodox Fathers or contemporary teachers who will dispute what St. Maximus and the other Fathers said about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. I don't think St. Photius even disputed that, and he was implacable in his opposition to the filioque (and rightly so).

What we Orthodox dispute is procession from the Father and the Son. That is the problem with the filioque: it can be understood to mean a double procession of the Holy Spirit, as if the Father were not the sole Cause or Source of the Spirit.

Honestly - and I am not one to defend the Roman Church - I think most thoughtful Latins understand the filioque to be about the way the Holy Spirit is communicated eternally to the Son from the Father.

As I understand it, the patristic conception of the procession of the Holy Spirit looks something like this:

The Father breathes forth the Spirit through the Son (dia mesou tou Logou - "by means of the Word") eternally.

Thus the Spirit has His origin in the Father but proceeds through the Son. Time and lapses in time are not at all relevant to this. It is better to think of it as directional rather than chronological, although even the notion of direction is inadequate.

The erroneous idea to which the filioque is subject looks like this:

Father and Son breathe forth the Holy Spirit.

That makes the Holy Spirit a kind of unequal partner in the Holy Trinity. It leaves out the fact that the Father is the sole Source of the Spirit.

Of course, all of this is too high for me.

[TSIBHOD]

I don't think I've gotten an answer to this question yet.

Since the Orthodox do not accept the Filioque, does that mean that you all don't accept the Athanasian Creed? The text I have says, "The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created: but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten: but proceeding."

[Vasya Davidovich]

No idea, Tsibhod.

Not really pertinent to my life... I say the Creed every Divine Liturgy (the Nicene Creed, as established by the Ecumencial Councils) - that and no more.

I have only run across the Athanasian one once or twice in an Anglican setting, when I was Anglican. The Apostle's Creed was that which was said in the Anglican eucharistic service.

[Vasya Davidovich]

In passing, it seems to me that there is need for one Creed, and one Creed alone.

If the Athanasian Creed was not made the universal, catholic creed of the Church... then I see no reason to use it. Ditto for any other creeds. And if we do not use it, why should we worry about whether we accept it or not?

My opinions, humbly offered.

[gtsecc]

The Apostle's Creed was that which was said in the Anglican eucharistic service.
Maybe, but typically that is a baptismal creed.
And, the Nicene would be said at at all eucharistic services, even if there was a Baptism (both wouldl be said.)

[Vasya Davidovich]

Maybe, but typically that is a baptismal creed.
And, the Nicene would be said at at all eucharistic services, even if there was a Baptism (both wouldl be said.)
Interesting.

My first intro to the Nicene Creed was through the Orthodox Church. Though I had been an Anglican for a couple years, I certainly hadn't seen it.

I should mention that we used the Book of Common Prayer (an older edition, as I understand it has been updated), not the BAS.

Perhaps that is why we had different experiences?

[gtsecc]

Interesting.

My first intro to the Nicene Creed was through the Orthodox Church. Though I had been an Anglican for a couple years, I certainly hadn't seen it.

I should mention that we used the Book of Common Prayer (an older edition, as I understand it has been updated), not the BAS.

Perhaps that is why we had different experiences?
Anything is possible.
I am almost positive that the Nicene creed is in every Prayer Book be it 1662 or Canadian or Scotish or 1928 or when ever or what ever country...it has to be in there.
You say the Apostles Creed at baptisms.
Then, I think The Nicene always, or almost always.
Was your parish one of those that did not have the Eucharist every week?
We come out of a state religion, so you can find some parishes which are almost Roman Catholic, and others which are extreme protestants and might eshew creeds, but that would be rare and mayeb their bishop does know...I am not sure.

[blakesto]

I'm with Maximus in that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son, not just temporally. As far as I understand, it is both Biblical and patristic to say that the Father does *all* things through the Son, and that would include the procession of the Spirit. Sometimes I wonder if some Orthodox now want to even say that the "through the Son" is temporal just as a reaction against the filioque.

If you don't take "through the Son" eternally, then it's pretty hard to say that Ambrose and Augustine weren't really advocating double procession as the West now understands it. And if "through the Son" isn't taken eternally, then the Bible referring to the Spirit as "the Spirit of the Father" and "the Spirit of the Son" means less, and people will start thinking that is evidence for filioque. If we maintain the eternal procession of the Spirit through the Son (still claiming the Father as the sole source of divinity), those verses don't cause any problems.

Where the West starts screwing up is when they say that by double procession they mean that the Spirit proceeds from the relationship between the Father and the Son, imo. Procession doesn't come from two hypostases at once, and it doesn't come from a "relation" as a principle.

[isshinwhat]

Where the West starts screwing up is when they say that by double procession they mean that the Spirit proceeds from the relationship between the Father and the Son, imo. Procession doesn't come from two hypostases at once, and it doesn't come from a "relation" as a principle.

If the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son at all times, as you have said, then can it be said that through "the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Gregpry of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382])?

What is the difference between proceeding and begotten in regards to the Spirit and the Son?

God Bless,

Neal

[Xpycoctomos]

My guess:

begotton only denotes origin

Proceed denotes origin AND movement. Therefore the Spirit ALWAYS nad ONLY Proceeds FROM the Father (that much is obvious) but proceeds THROUGH the Son (and it must be understood that the Son was in no way the ORIGIN of the Holy Spirit but rather... a vessel (forgive my wording, this may be too impersonal a word to describe the son's role)

What blake said about out saying that perhaps our insistance on the Holy Spirit not eternally proceeding through the Son is rather out of Romaphobia than good theology was a good point. I don't know enough to agree or disagree, but that is entirely plausible if one considers that we certainly do have our share of Romaphobia in some circles.

John