The Filioque
Monday, June 6, 2011
 |
| The Holy Trinity icon by Rublev |
Now, let us examine the Filioque based on the Catechism.
Catechism of Catholic Church, 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, 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."
Catechism of Catholic Church, 2789:"When we pray to "our" Father, we personally address the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. By doing so we do not divide the Godhead, since the Father is its "source and origin," but rather confess that the Son is eternally begotten by him and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. We are not confusing the persons, for we confess that our communion is with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, in their one Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity is consubstantial and indivisible. When we pray to the Father, we adore and glorify him together with the Son and the Holy Spirit."
Catechism of Catholic Church, 248:"At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason", for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed."
Since the Filioque has been explained, I wonder why it's such a big deal.
We have to take into consideration the Eastern formula (... through the son ...) and the Western formula (... and the son ... filioque ...) The former asserts the Monarchy of the father, whereas the latter asserts Consubstantiality. But all the way, both are professing the same faith.
Here, we read the Eastern formula, affirmed by the Church Fathers:
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [ca. A.D. 220]). - Tertullian
"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (The Holy Spirit 18:47 [A.D. 375]). - Basil
"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [ca. A.D. 405]). - Augustine
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit' [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 417]). - Augustine
"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: `The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life' [John 6:64]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]). - Ambrose
"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. 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" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 380]). - Gregory of Nyssa
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]). - Council of Nicaea II
"We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible . . . The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son" - Council of Toledo
Kallistos Ware himself stated:
"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 [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
And St. Maximus the Confessor, an Anatolian saint, clearly understood what is being asserted by the filioque:
"They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."
We have to understand that the issue not only lies within filioque but the Latin phrase procedit.
The Second Ecumenical Council’s reason for adding the text “Who proceeds from the Father” to the Nicene Creed was to defend the Spirit's divinity. In other words, the phrase at issue, in the mind of the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, was an assertion on the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Simple.
The addition of the filioque does not contradict with the Second Ecumenical Council’s decision and it does not entail the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
When St. Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, in John 15:26 from the Greek, he used the word “procedit” to translate the word “ekporeusai”. It was the closest Latin word that could be used. However, it was not a transliteration; both can be translated as “go forth” or “progress” or “proceed,” but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not; and such is the notion of origination.
When the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 formulated and ratified the new Creed for a more compelling defense of the Spirit’s divinity, they based the phrase at issue on John 15:26. During the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451, Pope St. Leo requested the Creed of Constantinople to be translated into Latin. Based on Scripture, “ekporeusai” was again translated to “procedit”.
From there, it spread to Western Christendom. Everyone knew that the intent of the addition to the phrase at issue (“proceeds from the Father”) was to defend the Spirit's divinity. But the difference in language resulted in different meanings of the phrase. Hence, the controversy.
To the Greeks who used the term “ekporeusai” with its inherent reference to origination, the phrase defended the Spirit’s divinity by asserting its origin from the Father. To the Latins who used the term “procedit” which only referred to a progression or going forth, the phrase defended the Spirit’s divinity by asserting His consubstantial Divinity with the Father. When Arianism came along, they added “and the Son” (filioque) to the phrase at issue to ensure the orthodox teaching of the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So what we have here is not two different Faiths, but two traditions expressing the same Faith (belief in the Spirit's divinity) in different, equally orthodox, ways.
Does that explain things now?
To clarify: To the Greeks, "procession" refers to the origination of hypostasis. To the Latins, "procession" refers to the sharing of the Divine Essence. Simple as that. No heretical beliefs, non whatsoever.
"... and the son ..." and "... through the son ..." are logically the same although the first asserts consubstantiality and the second asserts origination. If the first were used in the Greek version of the Creed, it would be considered heretical. But we're using the Latin version, so what gives?
But then, a particular argument recently came up to me, quoting CCC 246, which says:
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."
Again, we look at Section 248 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason", for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed." (CCC 248)
Do you see now how it actually says, "first consubstantial communion between Father and Son" and not the "eternal origin of the spirit" (as in the Eastern tradition)?
In CCC 246 (which others would try to use against Catholicism), we read, "And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father". This explains once again the consubstantial communion of Father and Son, and not the origin of the spirit. CCC 248 explains this.
To those who are oblivious, let's define "Consubstantiality".
"Consubstantiality" describes the relationship among the Divine persons of the Christian Trinity and connotes that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are "of one being" in that the Son is "generated" ("born" or "begotten") "before all ages" or "eternally" of the Father's own being, from which the Spirit also eternally "proceeds."
The Eastern Orthodox Churches believe in Consubstantiality:
All three persons are consubstantial with each other, that is, they are of one essence (homoousios) and coeternal. There never was a time when any of the persons of the Trinity did not exist.
The addition of the "filioque" therefore was to explain the Consubstanitality of the Trinity, as explained in CCC 248.
CCC 248 makes itself clear when it says, "for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", is the first origin of the spirit," I could use that as my only argument, but I wouldn't be addressing why CCC 246 states such things.
Again, what we have are two different traditions professing the same faith. It is therefore ridiculous to assert that we are expressing different faiths.
We have to remember that each section of the Catechism should not be taken as being able to stand alone. If others are basing their arguments on CCC 246, then they should also look at 247 and 248.
And the truth about CCC 246 is that it states in the beginning, "The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses..." Look carefully at its context. It means, it describes only what the Latin Tradition of the Creed confesses merely as what is heard. CCC 246 does not go deeper than that, such is why CCC 247 and 248 exist after 246 to elaborate further.
Today, many EO Churches are now putting aside their prejudices and are acknowledging that there need be no hindrance to unity on this issue. But some are still hardening their hearts and still asserting that what they believe in is true.
We also have to remember that the purpose for the formulation of the Nicene Creed was to combat heresies. And such is what the Western Church did when they/we "tampered" with the creed.
Originally posted by Jared Dale Combista in Verum Nocet on 10/30/10
0 comments:
Post a Comment