Jump to content

Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Pseudo-Richard (talk | contribs)
27,682 edits
Creating page using text copied from Filioque
(No difference)

Revision as of 17:07, 21 December 2011


Eastern Orthodoxy

The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone[1] as "One God, One Father".[2]That the filioque confuses the theology as it was defined at the councils at both Nicene and Constantinople.[3]The position that having the creed say "the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son", does not mean that the Holy Spirit now has two origins, is not the position the West took at the Council of Florence. Where the Roman Catholic side explicitly stated that the Holy Spirit has its cause of existence from the Father and the Son.[4]

Views of Eastern Orthodox saints

The addition of the Filioque to the Niceno-Constantinipolitan Creed has been condemned as heretical by many important Fathers and saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including Photios I of Constantinople, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, sometimes referred to as the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy. However, the statement 'The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son' can be understood in an orthodox sense if it is clear from the context that 'procession from the Son' refers to the sending forth of the Spirit in time, not to an eternal, double procession within the Trinity Itself. Hence, Saint Maximus the Confessor defended the Western use of the Filioque in a context other than that of the Niceno-Constantinipolitan Creed.[5]

“Concerning the Holy Spirit, it is said not that he has existence from the Son or through the Son, but rather that He proceeds from the Father and has the same nature as the Son, is in fact the Spirit of the Son as being One in Essence with Him” Saint Theodoret On the Third Ecumenical Council.

[6][7]

According to Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, it is Eastern Orthodox tradition that Saint Gregory of Nyssa himself composed the section of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed referring to the Holy Spirit adopted by the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381.[8] There is no reason to suppose that St Gregory of Nyssa, or any of the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, would have endorsed the addition of the Filioque, as later understood in the West, to the Creed.[9]

Eastern Orthodox view of Roman Catholic theology

Eastern Orthodox theologians (e.g., Michael Pomazansky) say that the Nicene Creed as a Symbol of Faith, as dogma, is to address and define church theology specifically the Orthodox Trinitarian understanding of God. In the hypostases of God as correctly expressed against the teachings considered outside the church. The Father hypostasis of the Nicene Creed is the origin of all.[10]Eastern Orthodox theologians have stated that New Testament passages (often quoted by the Latins) speak of the economy rather than the ontology of the Holy Spirit, and that in order to resolve this conflict Western theologians made further doctrinal changes, including declaring all persons of the Trinity to originate in the essence of God (the heresy of Sabellianism).[11] Eastern Orthodox theologians see this as teaching of philosophical speculation rather than from actual experience of God via theoria.

The Father is the eternal, infinite and uncreated reality, that the Christ and the Holy Spirit are also eternal, infinite and uncreated, in that their origin is not in the ousia of God, but that their origin is in the hypostasis of God called the Father. The double procession of the Holy Spirit bears some resemblance[12] to the teachings of Macedonius and his sect called the Pneumatomachians in that the Holy Spirit is created by the Son and a servant of the Father and the Son. It was Macedonius' position that caused the specific wording of the section on the Holy Spirit by St Gregory of Nyssa in the finalizedNicene creed.[46][13]

The following are points of the filioque as Roman Catholic dogma seen as in contention with Eastern Orthodoxy.

  1. The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally. The Fourth Council of the Lateran, 1215,
  2. A definition against the Albigenses and other heretics [We] confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one. The Second Council of Lyon, 1274, Constitution on the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
  3. The Father is not begotten; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Council of Florence, 1438–45, Decree for the Jacobites
  4. 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.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246[14]
  5. “We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.” Council of Florence, Session 6[15]
  6. In particular the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son”[16]

In the judgment of these Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church is in fact teaching as a matter of Roman Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit derives his origin and being (equally) from both the Father and the Son, making the Filioque a double procession.[17][18] This being the very thing that Maximus the Confessor was stating in his work from the 7th century that would be wrong and that the West was not doing.[19][failed verification][20][21]

They thus perceive the West as teaching through more than one type of theological Filioque a different origin and cause of the Holy Spirit. That through the dogmatic Roman Catholic Filioque the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son and not a free and independent and equal to the Father, hypostasis that receives his uncreatedness from the origin of all things, the Father hypostasis. Trinity expresses the idea of message, messenger and revealer, or mind, word and meaning. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in one God the Father, whose person is uncaused and unoriginate, who, because He is love and communion, always exists with His Word and Spirit.[22][23]

Eastern Orthodox theology

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity theology starts with the Father hypostasis, not the essence of God, since the Father is the God of the Old Testament.[24] The Father is the origin of all things and this is the basis and starting point of the Orthodox trinitarian teaching of one God in Father, one God, of the essence of the Father (as the uncreated comes from the Father as this is what the Father is).[25] In Eastern Orthodox theology, God's uncreatedness or being or essence in Greek is called ousia.[26] Jesus Christ is the Son (God Man) of the uncreated Father (God). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the uncreated Father (God).[27]

The activity and actuality of the Trinity in creation are called God's energies as God as creator is light and this uncreated light (energy) is the basis from which all things derive their existence.[28] God has existences (hypostases) of being; this concept is translated as the word "person" in the West.[29]Each hypostasis of God is a specific and unique existence of God.[30] Each has the same essence (coming from the origin, without origin, Father (God) they are uncreated).[31] Each specific quality that constitutes a hypostasis of God, is non-reductionist and not shared.[32]

It is this immanence of the Trinity that was defined in the finalized Nicene Creed. The economy of God, as God expresses himself in reality (his energies) was not what the Creed addressed directly.[33] Nor the specifics of God's interrelationships of his existences, is again not what is defined within the Nicene Creed.[34] The attempt to use the Creed to explain God's energies by reducing God existences to mere energies (actualities, activities, potentials) could be perceived as the heresy of semi-modalism.[35][36] Eastern Orthodox theologians have complained about this problem in the Roman Catholic dogmatic teaching of actus purus.[37]

Theodoret's statement against Cyril

The issue of the Filioque can somewhat be dated to the 5th century where St Theodoret refused to endorse the deposition of Nestorius by the Council of Ephesus(431),[failed verification][38] where Theodoret accused StCyril of Alexandria of erroneously teaching that the Son has a role in the origin of the Holy Spirit.[39][failed verification][40][failed verification][41][failed verification][42] In fact, several statements by Saint Cyril exist in which he fleetingly declares that the Holy Spirit issues from the Father and the Son (with similar statements that the Spirit issues from the Father through the Son)[43] in an intra-Trinitarian relationship.[44][45][46][47] and Antony Maas wrote that what Theodoret denied was not the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, but only the claim that the Holy Spirit was created by or through the Son.[48] Photius's position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone has been described as only a restatement of Theodoret's. In spite of Theodoret's attack on him for saying "the Spirit has his existence either from the Son or through the Son", Cyril continued to use such formulae.[49][50]

Under persistent urging by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (451), Theodoret finally pronounced an anathema on Nestorius.[51] He died in 457. Almost exactly one hundred years later, the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) declared anathema anyone who would defend the writings of Theodoret against Saint Cyril and his Twelve Anathemas,[52] the ninth of which Theodoret had attacked for what it said of the procession of the Holy Spirit.[40] (See Three-Chapter Controversy). He is considered a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but is called "the excommunicate" by the Oriental Orthodox Churches.[53] Both sides consider Cyril of Alexandria a saint. As Cyril spoke of the matter of which Theodoret accused him of as a misunderstanding. Cyril himself taught that the Latin teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son appears to confuse the three hypostases of God with the common attributes of each hypostasis, and to the God's energetic manifestation in the world.[54][55]

John Damascus

Before Photius, St John Damascus spoke explicitly of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son.

” Of the Holy Ghost, we both say that He is from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father; while we nowise say that He is from the Son, but only call Him the Spirit of the Son.” (Theol., lib. l.c. 11, v. 4.)[56][57]

Saint John of Damascus's position stated that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone, but through the Son as mediator, in this way differing from Photius.[58] John Damascus along with Photius, never endorsed the Filioque in the Creed.

Photius and the Monarchy of the Father

Photius insisted on the expression "from the Father" and excluded "through the Son" (Christ as co-cause of the Holy Spirit rather than primary cause) with regard to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit : "through the Son" applied only to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit (the sending in time).[58][59][60]Photius addresses in his entire work on the Filioque the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. That any addition to the Creed would be to complicate and confuse an already very clear and simple definition of the ontology of the Holy Spirit that the Ecumenical Councils already gave.[61]

Photius' position has been called a reaffirmation of Orthodox doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father. Photius's position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone has also been described as a restatement of the Cappadocian Antiochian school[62][63] (as opposed to the Alexandrian)[64][65][66] teaching of the "monarchy of the Father".[67]

Of the Eastern Orthodox's teaching ("from the Father alone"), Vladimir Lossky says that, while "verbally it may seem novel", it expresses in its doctrinal tenor the traditional teaching which is considered Orthodox.[68] The phrase "from the Father alone" arises from the fact that the Creed itself only has "from the Father". So that the word "alone", which Photius nor the Orthodox suggest be added to the Creed, has been called a "gloss on the Creed", a clarification, an explanation or interpretation of its meaning.[69]

Photius as well as the Eastern Orthodox, have never seen the need, nor ever suggested the word "alone" be added to the Creed itself. With this, the Eastern Orthodox Church generally considers the added Filioque phrase "from the Father and the Son" to be heretical,[70] and accordingly procession "from the Fatheralone" has been referred to as "a main dogma of the Greek Church".[71] In his study of the matter, Avery Dulles does not go so far and only states that the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone was the formula preferred by Photius and his strict disciples.[72]

Eastern Orthodox theologians maintain that by the expression "from the Father alone",[67] and Photius' opposition to the Filioque, Photius was confirming what is Orthodox and consistent with church tradition. Drawing the teaching of the Father as cause alone (their interpretation of the Monarchy of the Father) from such expressions from various saints and biblical text. Such as that of Saint Irenaeus, when he called the Word and the Spirit "the two hands of God".[67][73] They interpret the phrase "monarchy of the Father" differently from those who see it as not in conflict with a procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through or from the Son. As the Father has given to the Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father (see examples given above of those who in this way uphold the monarchy of the Father).

By insistence of the Filioque, Orthodox representatives say that the West appears to deny the monarchy of Father and the Father as principle origin of the Trinity. Which would indeed be the heresy of Modalism (which states the essence of God and not the Father is the origin of, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). The idea of Photius having invented that the Father is sole source of cause of the Holy Trinity is to attribute to him something that predates Photius' existence i.e.Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia,Theodoret of Cyrus and John of Damascus.[74] "Photius never explored the deeper meaning behind the formula 'through the Son' (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ), or the necessary eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, even though it was a traditional teaching of the previous Greek fathers".[75][citation needed]

Photius did recognize that the Spirit maybe said to proceed temporally through the Son orfrom the Son.[58][59][60][76] Photius stated that this was not the eternal Trinitarian relationships that was actually the thing being defined in the Creed.[67] The Nicene Creed in Greek, speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit "from the Father", not "from the Father alone", nor "From the Father and the Son", nor "From the Father through the Son".

Photius taught this in light of the teachings from Saints like Irenaeus whose Monarchy of the Father is in contrast to subordinationism, as the Orthodox officially condemnedsubordinationismin the 2nd council of Constantinople. That the Monarchy of Father which is in the Nicene Creed, Photius (and the Eastern Orthodox) endorse as official doctrine.[77] As well as StJohn of Damascus who taught the Holy Spirit proceeds from the being of God (as does Zizilious). Which is the Father expressed in the concept of the 'monarchy of the Father' via John 14:28 (“The Father is greater than I am”).[78]

Gregory Palamas' Tomus of 1351

In St Gregory of Palamas' Tomus (1351) on the issue of the Filioque he very clearly denotes the distinctions of the Eastern and Western churches positions on the procession of the Holy Spirit here St Gregory was not only following the Eastern Tradition of what was addressed in the Nicene Creed by the Greek Fathers but he also clarifies what the divergent phrases of those in the East whom appear to support the Filioque and what distinction is actually being made by the Eastern fathers whom oppose the use of Filioque.

"The Great Maximus, the holy Tarasius, and even the saintly John [Damascene] recognize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, from whom it subsists in terms of its hypostasis and the cause of its being. At the same time, they acknowledge that the Spirit is given, revealed, and, manifeste, comes forth, and is known through the Son."[79]

Orthodox theologians who do not condemn the Filioque

Not all Orthodox theologians share the view taken by Vladimir Lossky, Dumitru Stăniloae,John Romanides and Michael Pomazansky, who condemn the Filioque. There is a liberal view within the Orthodox tradition which is more accepting of the Filioque.[failed verification][80] The Encyclopedia of Christian Theology lists Vasily Bolotov,[81] Paul Evdokimov, I. Voronov and Sergei Bulgakov as seeing the Filioque as a permissible theological opinion or "theologoumenon."[81][82] Since a Theologoumenon is a theological opinion on what is defined outside of dogma, in the case of any Orthodox theologians open to the filioque as opinion, it is unclear if they would accept that the filioque ever be added into the Creed for the whole church, or just something exclusive for the Latin language based church of the West.[83] For Vasily Bolotov this is confirmed by other sources,[84] even if they do not themselves adopt that opinion. Though Bolotov firmly rejects the Filioque in the procession of the Spirit from the Father.[85]

Sergei Bulgakov's own work The Comforter states:

"from the Son" and "through the Son" are theological opinions which were dogmatized prematurely and erroneously. There is no dogma of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son and therefore particular opinions on this subject are not heresies but merely dogmatic hypotheses, which have been transformed into heresies by the schismatic spirit that has established itself in the Church and that eagerly exploits all sorts of liturgical and even cultural differences" (emphasis in the original).[86]

As an Orthodox theologian, Bulgakov acknowledges that dogma can only established by an ecumenical council.

Boris Bobrinskoy sees the Filioque as having positive theological content.[87][88] Bishop Kallistos Ware suggests that the problem is of semantics rather than of basic doctrinal differences.[80][89] Saint Theophylact of Ohrid likewise held that the difference was linguistic in nature and not actually theological.

References

  1. ^ Religious Bodies: 1906: Separate Denominations: History, Description, and Statistics William Chamberlin Hunt (Author), United States. Bureau Of The Census [1]
  2. ^ One God, One Father First of all, it is the Church’s teaching and its deepest experience that there is only one God because there is only one Father. In the Bible the term “God” with very few exceptions is used primarily as a name for the Father. Thus, the Son is the “Son of God,” and the Spirit is the “Spirit of God.” The Son is born from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father—both in the same timeless and eternal action of the Father’s own being. In this view, the Son and the Spirit are both one with God and in no way separated from Him. Thus, the Divine Unity consists of the Father, with His Son and His Spirit distinct from Himself and yet perfectly united together in Him.[2]
  3. ^ The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St Photius pg 75-76 Publisher: Holy Cross Orthodox Press Language: English ISBN 978-0-916586-88-1
  4. ^ (In conclusion) We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father. And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need. [3]
  5. ^ "Desiring to defend the Westerners, (he) justified them precisely by saying that by the words “from the Son” they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son" (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood press 1994 ISBN 0-938635-69-7) and "defended the Filioque as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" (Theological Quarterly, January-April 1995, p. 32, and cf. p. 40).
  6. ^ Pomazansky, Protopresbyter Michael (1984). Orthodox Dogmatic theology. Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. p. 89. ASIN B004VPF3G6. {{cite book}}: Text "ISBN 0938635697" ignored (help)
  7. ^ [4]
  8. ^ At the Second Ecumenical Council he was recognized by all present as the theologian par excellence. He read the opening speech at the Synod; pronounced the funeral oration for Meletius of Antioch, who was chairman of the Council; gave the speech at the enthronement of St. Gregory the Theologian as Archbishop of Constantinople, and, as is believed, was the one who gave the final form to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and formulated the article about the Holy Spirit: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life; Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets". In icons of the Second Ecumenical Council, St. Gregory is presented as the recording clerk of the Synod. Life After Death by Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos[5]
  9. ^ pg 44-45[6]
  10. ^ In the Byzantine period the Orthodox side accused the Latin speaking Christians, who supported the Filioque, of introducing two Gods, precisely because they believed that the Filioque implied two causes--not simply two sources or principles--in the Holy Trinity. The Greek Patristic tradition, at least since the Cappadocian fathers identified God with the person of the Father, whereas, St. Augustine seems to identify him with the one divine substance (the deitas or divinitas) [7]
  11. ^ pg 48-57 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)[8]
  12. ^ Photius states in section 32 "And Again, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son likewise is begotten of the Father, then it is in precisely this fact that the Father's personal property is discerned. But if the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceed from the Son (as this delirium of theirs would have it) then the Spirit of the Father is distinguished by more personal properties than the Son of the Father: on the one hand as proceeding from the equality of the Son and the Spirit, the Spirit is further differentiated by the two distinctions brought about by the dual procession, then the Spirit is not only differentiated by more distinctions than the Son of the Father, but the Son is closer to the Father's essence. And this is so precisely because the Spirit is distinguished by two specific properties. Therefore He is inferior to the Son, Who in turn is of the same nature as the Father! Thus the Spirit's equal dignity is blasphemed, once again giving rise to the Macedonian insanity against the Spirit." The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St Photius pg 75-76 Publisher: Holy Cross Orthodox Press Language: English ISBN 978-0-916586-88-1
  13. ^ "However, the chief of the heretics who distorted the apostolic teaching concerning the Holy Spirit was Macedonius, who occupied the cathedra of Constantinople as archbishop in the 4th century and found followers for himself among former Arians and Semi-Arians. He called the Holy Spirit a creation of the Son, and a servant of the Father and the Son. Accusers of his heresy were Fathers of the Church like Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Amphilocius, Diodores of Tarsus, and others, who wrote works against the heretics. The false teaching of Macedonius was refuted first in a series of local councils and finally at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. In preserving Orthodoxy, the Second Ecumenical Council completed the Nicaean Symbol of Faith with these words: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is equally worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets,” as well as those articles of the Creed which follow this in the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith." Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood press 1994 (ISBN 0-938635-69-7
  14. ^ His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by Laurent Cleenewerck pg 335 ISBN 978-0-615-18361-9 [9]
  15. ^ [10]
  16. ^ [11]
  17. ^ The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine; in Image and Likeness of God byVladimir Lossky “If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as the hypostatic cause of the consubstantial hypostases, we find the ‘simple Trinity,’ where the monarchy of the Father conditions the personal diversity of the Three while at the same time expressing their essential unity.” In the Image and Likeness of God, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974, p. 88.[12]
  18. ^ The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, and Human Nature by John Witte Jr, Frank S. Alexander, Paul Valliere Publisher: Columbia University Press ISBN 978-0-231-14265-6 [13]
  19. ^ THE FILIOQUE by John S. Romanides "During the ensuing centuries long course of the controversy, the Franks not only forced the Patristic tradition into an Augustinian mold, but they confused Augustine's Trinitarian terminology with that of the Father's of the First and Second Ecumenical Synods. This is nowhere so evident as in the Latin handling of Maximos the Confessor's description, composed in 650, of the West Roman Orthodox Filioque at the Council of Florence (1438-42). The East Romans hesitated to present Maximos' letter to Marinos about this West Roman Orthodox Filioque because the letter did not survive in its complete form. They were pleasantly surprised, however, when Andrew, the Latin bishop of Rhodes, quoted the letter in Greek in order to prove that in the time of Maximos there was no objection to the Filioque being in the Creed. Of course, the Filioque was not yet in the Creed. Then Andrew proceeded to translate Maximos into Latin for the benefit of the pope. However, the official translator intervened and challenged the rendition. Once the correct translation was established, the Franks then questioned the authenticity of the text. They assumed that their own Filioque was the only one in the West, and so they rejected on this ground Maximos' text as a basis of union. When Maximos spoke about the Orthodox Filioque, as supported with passages from Roman Fathers, he did not mean those who came to be known as Latin Fathers, and so included among them Saint Cyril of Alexandria."[14]
  20. ^ It is obvious that Anastasios the Librarian did not at first understand the Frankish Filioque, since on this question he reprimands the "Greeks" for their objections and accuses them of not accepting Maximos the Confessor's explanation that there are two usages of the term; the one whereby procession means essential mission, wherein the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (in which case the Holy Spirit participated in the act of sending, so that this is a common act of the whole Trinity), and the second, whereby precession means casual relation wherein the existence of the Holy Spirit is derived. In this last sense, Maximos assures Marinos (to whom he is writing), that the West Romans accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds casually only from the Father and that the Son is not cause.[15]
  21. ^ This interpretation of the Filioque, given by Maximos the Confessor and Anastasios the Librarian is the consistent position of the Roman popes, and clearly so in the case of Leo III. The minutes of the conversation held in 810 between the three apocrisari of Charlemagne and Pope Leo III, kept by the Frankish monk Smaragdus, bear out this consistency in papal policy. Leo accepts the teaching of the Fathers, quoted by the Franks, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as taught by Augustine and Ambrose. However, the Filioque must not be added to the Creed as was done by the Franks, who got permission to sing the Creed from Leo but not to add to the Creed.[16]
  22. ^ In the Byzantine period the Orthodox side accused the Latin speaking Christians, who supported the Filioque, of introducing two Gods, precisely because they believed that the Filioque implied two causes--not simply two sources or principles--in the Holy Trinity. The Greek Patristic tradition, at least since the Cappadocian fathers identified God with the person of the Father, whereas, St. Augustine seems to identify him with the one divine substance (the deitas or divinitas).[17]
  23. ^ Gregory Palamas proposed a similar interpretation of this relationship in a number of his works; in his Confession of 1351, for instance, he asserts that the Holy Spirit “has the Father as foundation, source, and cause,” but “reposes in the Son” and “is sent – that is, manifested–through the Son.” (ibid. 194) In terms of the transcendent divine energy, although not in terms of substance or hypostatic being, “the Spirit pours itself out from the Father through the Son, and, if you like, from the Son over all those worthy of it,” a communication which may even be broadly called “procession” (ekporeusis) (Apodeictic Treatise 1: trans. J. Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas [St. Vladimir’s, 1974] 231-232).
  24. ^ [18]
  25. ^ [19]
  26. ^ The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Volume 1 By John Anthony McGuckin pg 312 [20]
  27. ^ [21]
  28. ^ [22]
  29. ^ [23]
  30. ^ [24]
  31. ^ [25]
  32. ^ [26]
  33. ^ The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual ... By John Anthony McGuckin pg 170-171 [27]
  34. ^ The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual ... By John Anthony McGuckin pg 170-171 [28]
  35. ^ The Orthodox Church: its past and its role in the world today By John Meyendorff [29]
  36. ^ The Orthodox Church By Kallistos (Bishop of Diokleia) pg 213[30]
  37. ^ Rome, Constantinople, Moscow: historical and theological studies By John Meyendorff [31]
  38. ^ The Historians of Late Antiquity, p. 128
  39. ^ The HarperCollins encyclopedia of Catholicism By Richard P. McBrien, Harold W. Attridge pg 529
  40. ^ a b IX of Cyril
  41. ^ "This idea is clearly expressed by Blessed Theodoret: 'Concerning the Holy Spirit, it is said not that he has existence from the Son or through the Son, but rather that He proceeds from the Father and has the same nature as the Son, is in fact the Spirit of the Son as being One in Essence with Him' (Bl. Theodoret, 'On the Third Ecumenical Council')." Orthodox dogmatic theology by Michael Pomazansky [32]
  42. ^ "The pronouncements of the years following confirmed the final result; see the epistle of the Council of Constantinople of 382, but above all, the anathemas of Damasus. The doctrine of the homousia of the Spirit from this time onward was as much a part of orthodoxy as the doctrine of the homousia of the Son. But since according to the Greek way of conceiving of the matter, the Father continued to be regarded as the root of the Godhead, the perfect homousia of the Holy Spirit necessarily always seemed to be inferior to the Son and thus to be a grandchild of the Father, or else to possess a double root. Then, besides, the dependence of the Spirit on the Son was obstinately maintained by the Arians and Semi-Arians on the ground that certain passages in the Bible supported this view, and in the interest of their conception of a descending Trinity in three stages. Thus the Greeks had constantly to watch and see that the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone was taught, and after the revised Creed of Jerusalem became an ecumenical Creed, they had a sacred text in support of their doctrine, which came to be as important as the doctrine itself." History of dogma, Volume 4 By Adolf von Harnack pgs 118-119[33]
  43. ^ Thomas Gerard Weinandy, Daniel A. Keating (editors), The Theology of St Cyril of Alexandria. (T&T Clark 2005 ISBN 9780567089007), p. 107
  44. ^ Weinandy and Keating (editors), The Theology of St Cyril of Alexandria, p. 105
  45. ^ Farrelly, The Trinity: Rediscovering the Central Christian Mystery (Rowman & Littlefield 2005 ISBN 9780742532267), p. 101
  46. ^ Nikolaevich Bulgakov, The Comforter(Eerdmans 2004 ISBN 9780802821126), p. 83
  47. ^ S. Markham, The Blackwell Companion to the Theologians (Wiley, John & Sons 2009 ISBN 9781405135078), vol 1, p. 83
  48. ^ "If ... the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son" [34]
  49. ^ John Farrelly, The Trinity (Rowman & Littlefield 2005 ISBN 9780742532267), p. 119
  50. ^ I Believe in the Holy Spirit (Seabury Press 1983), vol. 3, p. 35
  51. ^ Theodoret and Chalcedon
  52. ^ Clayton, The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus (Oxford University Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-19-814398-7), p. 1
  53. ^ of Damiette, The View of the Coptic Orthodox Church concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius of Constantinople (1998)
  54. ^ "The . . . contention of the Latins . . . was reasonably considered by the Orthodox as leading to the confusion of the three hypostatic persons with the common attributes of each person, and to their manifestations and relations with the world." A Theological Introduction to the Mystagogy of Saint Photios pg 39 The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St Photius Publisher: Holy Cross Orthodox Press Language: English ISBN 978-0-916586-88-1[35]
  55. ^ John Karmiris, A Synopsis of the Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church, trans. from the Greek by the Reverend George Dimopoulos (Scranton, Pa.: Christian Orthodox Edition, 1973) pg 18
  56. ^ [36]
  57. ^ [37]
  58. ^ a b c "John of Damascus, who gave the doctrine of the Greek fathers its scholastic shape, about a.d. 750, one hundred years before the controversy between Photius and Nicolas, maintained that the procession is from the Father alone, but through the Son, as mediator. The same formula, Ex Patre per Filium, was used by Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, who presided over the seventh oecumenical Council (787), approved by Pope Hadrian I., and was made the basis for the compromise at the Council of Ferrara (1439), and at the Old Catholic Conference at Bonn (1875). Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume IV, §108).
  59. ^ a b "In general, and already since Photius, the Greek position consisted in distinguishing the eternal procession of the Son (sic: recteSpirit?) from the Father, and the sending of the Spirit in time through the Son and by the Son" (John Meyendorff,Theology in the Thirteenth Century: Methodological Contrasts).
  60. ^ a b "Photius could concede that the Spirit proceeds through the Son in his temporal mission in the created order but not in his actual eternal being" [Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church (Oxford University Press, 2003 ISBN 0-19-926457), p. 154]
  61. ^ The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St Photius pg 75-76 Publisher: Holy Cross Orthodox Press Language: English ISBN 978-0-916586-88-1
  62. ^ Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque controversy in the patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289) By Aristeides Papadakis pg 113 [38]
  63. ^ The Contentious Triangle: Church, State, and University : A Festschrift in Honor of Professor George Huntston Williams pg 104 ISBN 978-0-943549-58-3 [39]
  64. ^ Cite error: The named reference PCPCU was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  65. ^ Berthold, "Cyril of Alexandria and the Filioque" in Studia Patristica XIX, Papers presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies in Oxford 1987
  66. ^ Molnar, Thomas F. Torrance, Theologian of the Trinity (Ashgate Publishing Company 2005ISBN 978-0-7546-5228-1), p. 65
  67. ^ a b c d Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289) Aristeides Papadakis St. Vladimir's Seminary Press ISBN 978-0-88141-176-8[40]
  68. ^ Lossky, The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine
  69. ^ The Filioque Clause in History and Theology
  70. ^ "Such are some of the reasons why Orthodox regard the filioque as dangerous and heretical. Filioquism confuses the persons, and destroys the proper balance between unity and diversity in the Godhead. ... Such in outline is the Orthodox attitude to the filioque, although not all would state the case in such an uncompromising form" (Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church (extracts).
  71. ^ Encyclopedia of Theology (Burns & Oates 1975 ISBN 81-7109-697-2), p. 646
  72. ^ Avery Dulles,TheFilioque: What Is at Stake? in Concordia Theological Quarterly, January-April 1955, p. 38
  73. ^ Nevertheless, the overall Eastern tradition, because it stresses the Scriptural and pre-Nicene teaching of the Monarchy of the Father, prefers St. Irenaeus’ pyramid vision of the Word and Spirit as “the two hands of God”. His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches byLaurent Cleenewerck
  74. ^ The authority of the Nicene Creed, and the Greek fathers, especially Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and John of Damascus. The Antiochean school is clearly on the Greek side; but the Alexandrian school leaned to the formula through the Son (dia; tou’ uiJou’, per Filium). The Greeks claim all the Greek fathers, and regard Augustin as the inventor of the Latin dogma of the double procession.
  75. ^ Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford University Press 2010 ISBN 978-0-19-537204-5), p. 10
  76. ^ Photios’ position that, “the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone,” intends not to deny the intimate relations between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit. It is only to make utterly explicit that the Father alone causes the existence of both the Son and the Spirit. Conferring upon them all his attributes, and powers, except his hypostatic property, i.e., that he is the Father, the unbegotten, the source, origin, and cause of divinity. His Broken Body pg 331[41]
  77. ^ Under the heading of the Roman Catholic teaching of the filioque Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas approved “A Lutheran-Orthodox Common Statement on Faith in the Holy Trinity. 1998. The Orthodox do not regard the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father to be one which they can accept. This teaching is opposed to the monarchy of the Father and to the equality of the Spirit to the Father and the Son as a hypostasis or person distinct from both, as expressed by the original Creed. ... That the Holy Spirit eternally comes forth from the Son, so as to depend for his being and his possession of the one divine nature on the Son as well as on the Father, is a teaching which Orthodox uniformly oppose.“A Lutheran-Orthodox Common Statement on Faith in the Holy Trinity,” paragraph 11. This would seem to be an expression of what Kallistos Ware calls the “rigorist” position within the Orthodox Church. (“Christian Theology in the East,” in A History of Christian Doctrine, edited by Hubert Cunliffe-Jones [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980], p. 209.[42]
  78. ^ Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov, The Comforter (Wm. B. Eerdmans 2004 ISBN 0-8028-2112-X), p. 48
  79. ^ Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque controversy in the patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283 - 1289) By Aristeides Papadakis pg 124 [43]
  80. ^ a b “A Lutheran-Orthodox Common Statement on Faith in the Holy Trinity,” paragraph 11. This would seem to be an expression of what Kallistos Ware calls the “rigorist” position within the Orthodox Church. (“Christian Theology in the East,” in A History of Christian Doctrine, edited by Hubert Cunliffe-Jones [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980], p. 209.) Ware maintains that a more “liberal” position on this issue is “also held by many Orthodox at the present time.” He writes that “According to the ‘liberal’ view, the Greek and the Latin doctrines on the procession of the Holy Spirit may both alike be regarded as theologically defensible. The Greeks affirm that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Latins that He proceeds from the Father and from the Son; but when applied to the relationship between Son and Spirit, these two prepositions ‘through’ and ‘from’ amount to the same thing.”[failed verification] (Ware, p. 208)
  81. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ECT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  82. ^ A theologoumenon has been defined as a theological opinion in a debate where both sides are rigorously orthodox (Theology Glossary)
  83. ^ Similarly the Anglican consideration to remove the filioque from the Creed but at the same time to continue to affirm its theological value as a complementary Western understanding of the Holy Trinity, Donald M. Allchin, "The Filioque Clause: An Anglican Approach," Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, pp. 85-87. Allchin reports the official proposal to the Anglican Church by the Anglican membership of the Anglican-Orthodox Doctrinal Commission. He himself seems critical of the implications of the filioque. See pp. 95-96. while welcome, essentially depends on whether or not the filioque is at least consistent with dogmatic truth as officially promulgated by the ecumenical synods. Neither the filioque formula nor the interpretations in support of it or against it can be regarded as theologoumena, as some would have it, unless they can be clearly shown at least not to be opposed to early Christian doctrine and the Nicene Creed. Theologoumena cannot contradict promulgated dogmatic truth for otherwise, as Dumitru Staniloae pointedly observes, "it would be impossible to tell the difference between a theologoumenon and an error." "The Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and His Relation to the Son, as the Basis of our Deification and Adoption," Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, p. 175. From The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon or Error? by Theodore Stylianopoulos The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Volume 31, No. 3-4, 1986. pp. 255-288.[44]
  84. ^ Ralph Del Cole, Reflections on the Filioque in Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Spring 1997, page 2 of online text
  85. ^ The Trinity and the kingdom: the doctrine of God By Jürgen Moltmann pg 180 [45]
  86. ^ Nikolaevich Bulgakov, The Comforter (Wm. B. Eerdmans 2004 ISBN 0-8028-2112-X), p. 148
  87. ^ Ralph Del Cole, Reflections on the Filioque in Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Spring 1997, page 3 of online text
  88. ^ Lancelot Andrewes the Preacher (1555-1626): The Origins of the Mystical. Theology of the Church of England, p. 236, footnote 992
  89. ^ "The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Bishop Kallistos Ware, Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby's A Voice from the Byzantine East, p.43).

Bibliography

Much has been written on the Filioque; what follows is selective. As time goes on, this list will inevitably have to be updated.

  • This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Wood, James, ed. (1907). The Nuttall Encyclopædia. London and New York: Frederick Warne. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • "Filioque", article in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 614.
  • David Bradshaw. Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 214–220.
  • Laurent Cleenewerck. His Broken Body: Understanding and healing the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Washington, DC: Euclid University Press, 2008, pp. 321–347.
  • Joseph P. Farrell. God, History, & Dialectic: The Theological Foundations of the Two Europes and Their Cultural Consequences. Bound edition 1997. Electronic edition 2008.
  • Joseph P. Farrell translator The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St Photius Publisher: Holy Cross Orthodox Press Language: English ISBN 978-0-916586-88-1
  • John St. H. Gibaut, "The Cursus Honorum and the Western Case Against Photius", Logos 37 (1996), 35–73.
  • Elizabeth Teresa Groppe. Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. See esp. pp. 75–79, for a summary of Congar's work on theFilioque. Congar is widely considered the most important Roman Catholic ecclesiologist of the twentieth century. He was influential in the composition of several Vatican II documents. Most important of all, he was instrumental in the association in the West of pneumatology and ecclesiology, a new development.
  • David Guretzki.Karl Barth on the Filioque.Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2009. ISBN 978-0-7546-6704-9. A close examination of Karl Barth's defense of the filioque and why his position is closer to an Eastern perspective than has typically been assumed.
  • Richard Haugh. Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975.
  • Joseph Jungmann, S.J. Pastoral Liturgy. London: Challoner, 1962. See "Christ our God", pp. 38–48.
  • James Likoudis. Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism. New Rochelle, New York: 1992. An apologetic response to polemical attacks. A useful book for its inclusion of important texts and documents; see especially citations and works by Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Demetrios Kydones, Nikos A. Nissiotis, and Alexis Stawrowsky. The select bibliography is excellent. The author demonstrates that the Filioque dispute is only understood as part of a dispute over papal primacy and cannot be dealt with apart from ecclesiology.
  • Bruce D. Marshall, "'Ex Occidente Lux?' Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology", Modern Theology 20:1 (January, 2004), 23–50. Reconsideration of the views of Aquinas, especially on deification and grace, as well as his Orthodox critics. The author suggests that Aquinas may have a more accurate perspective than his critics, on the systematic questions of theology that relate to the Filioque dispute.
  • John Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology. New York: Fordham University Press, 1979, pp. 91–94.
  • Aristeides Papadakis. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283–1289). New York: Fordham University Press, 1983.
  • Aristeides Papadakis. The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994, pp. 232–238 and 379-408.
  • Duncan Reid. Energies of the Spirit: Trinitarian Models in Eastern Orthodox and Western Theology. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997.
  • A. Edward Siecienski. The Use of Maximus the Confessor's Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439). Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.
  • A. Edward Siecienski. The Filioque. History of a Doctrinal Controversy. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
  • Malon H. Smith, III. And Taking Bread: Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054. Paris: Beauschesne, 1978. This work is still valuable for understanding cultural and theological estrangement of East and West by the turn of the millennium. Now, it is evident that neither side understood the other; both Greek and Latin antagonists assumed their own practices were normative and authentic.
  • Timothy Kallistos Ware. The Orthodox Church. New edition. London: Penguin, 1993, pp. 52–61.
  • Timothy [Kallistos] Ware. The Orthodox Way. Revised edition. Crestwood, New York: 1995, pp. 89–104.
  • [World Council of Churches] /Conseil Oecuménique des Eglises. La théologie du Saint-Esprit dans le dialogue œcuménique Document # 103 [Faith and Order]/Foi et Constitution. Paris: Centurion, 1981.
  • Sergius Bulgakov. The Comforter. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (June 2004) ISBN 978-0-8028-2112-6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Orthodox_teaching_regarding_the_Filioque&oldid=467049853"