Why Does The Filioque Debate Matter?

[N/A Gone]

East and West.


and even protestant


Why does the issue of the filioque matter? I know that it is an issue between East and West and it is not understood by most of protestantism. But why does this matter? What is the practical gain we can have from working with this issue? What do we hope to gain in discussion? Are we trying to come to a common agreement, or just get to a point where we are talking?

Why is so much time spent discussing something that we might not have the revelation to know?

[Mateo el Feo]

For me personally (as a hobbyist student of theology) , I would follow St. Augustine in his book "The Trinity" (don't have the reference handy). Basically, the argument goes that without the filioque, the Holy Spirit's relation to the Father is the same as the Son/Word. In that case, it starts looking like there are two sons of the Father.

[N/A Gone]

Thank you sir. But I know the theology.(and I disagree to a degree with what you said, even if I strongly follow Augustine) Im wondering the practical reason for the issue. How does this effect us?

[Dismas]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385155' date='Sep 13 2007, 09:18 PM']Thank you sir. But I know the theology.(and I disagree to a degree with what you said, even if I strongly follow Augustine) Im wondering the practical reason for the issue. How does this effect us?[/quote]
Sometimes, theological bickering is used as a veneer to cover less enlightened conflicts. It can be used as an excuse for the ensuing un-Christian behavior. I believe Ven. Archbishop Sheen mentioned something like, "There are some things that are so sacred that in order to betray them, one must first preface it with a sign of affection." I believe it was during his show titled "The kiss that blistered". This is true about our love of Jesus and our neighbor. Many un-Christian acts followed the first theological volley during the Great Schism, acts that stained the hands of both sides. Sadly, the West was more capable in manpower of performing acts of charity and hatred than the East, and so Constantinople burned. There was no sign of a possibility of healing from that wound until men from East and West, as brothers united, defended in vain that same city from the murdering hordes of heathen Turks.

I believe I had heard that the Filioque was used also to stamp out the semi-Arianists.

[N/A Gone]

So how does working thru this issue now help us in our own faith as well as our relations with the east and perhaps protestants?

[Apotheoun]

Eastern Christians reject the filioque because it involves a Sabellian confusion of person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) and essence ([i]ousia[/i]) in God.

Clearly, neither the Son nor the Spirit can receive their eternal origin from the divine essence, because the divine essence is absolutely common to all three divine persons. That said, the Son is eternally generated from the Father's person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and the Holy Spirit proceeds ([i]ekporeusis[/i]), not from the divine essence, but from the person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) of the Father, who alone is the source, cause, and principle of divinity.

Moreover, in the Triadology of the Eastern Fathers the Son and Spirit are distinguished from each other by their unique mode of origin (i.e., their [i]tropos hyparxeos[/i]) from the Father. The Son receives His eternal origin by generation ([i]gennesin[/i]); while -- on the other hand -- the Holy Spirit takes His origin, not by generation, but by procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) from the Father.

Now since I explained the theology of the East on this issue in another thread, I thought that I would repost that comment below:

[quote]Eastern Triadology, unlike the Scholastic philosophical theology of the West, is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle ([i]arche[/i]), source ([i]pege[/i]), and cause ([i]aitia[/i]) of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their subsistence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are — as a consequence — [i]homoousios[/i] with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word [i]homoousios[/i] itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the term [i]homoousios[/i] involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) from the Father alone by generation ([i]gennatos[/i]), and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father’s person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and not from the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the hypostatic procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin of the Holy Spirit, because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father’s person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and not from the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), which — as I already indicated — is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, “Logos Apodeiktikos” I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal subsistence and their co-essential nature

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) proceeds from Father and the Son “as from one principle,” thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son, by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.[/quote]

Edited September 14, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Dismas]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385214' date='Sep 13 2007, 10:03 PM']So how does working thru this issue now help us in our own faith as well as our relations with the east and perhaps protestants?[/quote]
Well, there are a few possibilities.

First, should differences and prides be subsumed for the sake of Christ, "solving" this debate would be a means to save face for the parties involved in re-communing.

Second, should ecumenical efforts fail on the large scale, yet for reasons only known to our Lord, individual parishes or dioceses return, "solving" this debate would be seen as an argument for doing so.

Third, should even this level of ecumenism fail, the strength of argument and expression of charity may draw individuals back to an Eastern Rite or Anglican Use Rite that mirrors the given Orthodox or Protestant, yet hold fidelity to Rome.

Fourth, should even this be lacking in the Will of God, that He must join us together with a persecution in every corner of the world, that we may find some small comfort in whispering our joy of solving this matter as we hide in tomorrow's catacombs.

There is hope, though I wonder the price we must pay for our pride. I suggest we pray to Our Lady, Help of Christians, for Christian Unity.

I firmly believe that if we do not make every effort to find common cause with our separated brethren in the world now, the world shall give us one in catacombs, camps, and crematoriums.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385155' date='Sep 13 2007, 10:18 PM']Thank you sir. But I know the theology.(and I disagree to a degree with what you said, even if I strongly follow Augustine) Im wondering the practical reason for the issue. How does this effect us?[/quote]Sorry, my memory was a little faulty. In any event, I tracked down the passages I was refering to. I was thinking of Book 2, chap. 1, para. 5, and later in book 5, chap. 3, para. 15. That's where the issue of "two sons" comes up, but it's resolved more with the distinction of being begotten vs. being given. St. Augustine's resolution (i.e. of the two sons problem) wasn't the issue of procession, as I incorrectly assumed, though procession from the Son is obliquely mentioned in the same paragraphs. It's more directly dealt with in book 4, chap. 5, para. 29.

I guess the underlying issues/questions for me are:
* Do you think the Filioque may be no more an issue than the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilliputians"]Lilliputians (and Blefuscudians)[/url] fighting over whether one is big-endian or little-endian when preparing his boiled eggs?
* Are any dogmatic statements about the innerworking of the Trinity (e.g. rejection of modalism or Sabellianism) immune from this line of criticism? (Note: not that I think you are criticising)
* Does the political history of the Filioque create the controvery, without which we might not focus on this particular question?

Apart from the earlier answer, I'm afraid I can't think of much practical impact that the issue has on my life, though I'd be interested in seeing other people's replies.

Just my $0.02.

[Socrates]

I'm not much of a theologian, but knowlege of the truth of God is good for its own sake.
Theology has traditionally been called the "Queen of Sciences," and knowlege of God can never be considered "trivial" or "irrelevent" by the Catholic.

Why the "Filioque" argument may seem trivial or umimportant to non-theological people because it has little practical impact in how we live our lives, this attitude taken to its logical conclusion can risk reducing Christianity to a purely utilitarian ethos unconcerned with anything beyond the worldly. ("Who cares about all that theology and dogma stuff; it just creates conflict - so long as we love each other and lead good lives, none of that stuff really matters.")

[N/A Gone]

Good post Dismas, but how does the filioque effect your own faith?

Mateo-im the one asking questions. Not you.
-Augustine did this when trying to explain the difference in the Spirit's procession and Son's generation. He is struggling with this in De Trinitate . Gregory does the same thing in order to avoid the idea of the Spirit and the Son being twins, or the Father as a grandfather of the Holy Spirit. The way he does this is by drawing on an image of the Trinity relating to the first family, citing Adam as the Father, Eve as the Holy Spirit and Seth as the Son. In this the trinity resembles a nuclear family with the Holy Spirit as the Mother of the Son. (Todd- I am citing Golitzin, a Greek Orthodox if you are curious)

-In any theology there must be purpose. I think the issue is important, but I have also spent alot of time studying it. So my opinion would be bias. In a nutshell, I would think we hold to the original creed as dogmatic, but allow (east and west) the filioque as a non-heretical theological option. As long as we do not assume things in the filioque which cause heresy. I think the issue is something that we could work with. Brian Daley wrote that the Constantinopolitian creed was crafted in language that allowed for an openness of possible pneumatological expressions. In this, I believe there is enough openness language in the filioque, as a pneumatological expression of the creed, to interpret the Augustianian love model in a way that can allow a viable option for the Eastern and Western view of the Trinity. A common pneumatological model that can be understood as both Catholic and Orthodox in its language.At the very least provide both harmony with the original creed and a response to the potential Eastern Orthodox objections.

St. Thomas Aquinas worked from the conclusion that the Eastern opposition to the filioque is not due to any fundamental reason, but due to wording and understanding. Aquinas performed this task by approaching the mystery of the Trinity and its persons with a modesty not common in our academic approach, but rather one that resembled the “apophatic austerity of the Cappadocians.” Aquinas saw this issue as essential to underscoring God's redemptive design, rather than as a simple mental exercise.

One step toward a mutual understanding would be for the distinction between ekporeusis and proeinai to be fully digested by Roman Catholic theology. when it is assumed that the economic trinitarian processions are always rooted in and expressive of immanent trinitarian processions. But, of course, this is precisely what the Eastern Orthodox reject. they will allow an economic filioque (perhaps even an economic spirituque?) but not an immanent one. In the immanent trinity, the Father has absolute priority and the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to him not in being, but in person. The Father is greater than they because they come from him and he does not come from them.

I understand that the view of many is that the issue of division is at its roots one of ecclesiology and not of theology. While working through the filioque issue alone will not resolve the eccesiological issues, I see value in working towards a common theological ground from which unity can progress. The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation understood that addressing the issue of the filioque is a needed step towards unity, even going so far as to strongly suggest the removal of the filioque from all liturgical and catechetical documents.

(sorry for the babble--I warned you I am passionate on this issue)

-(your second point) From a western side we would need to work within the framework of Florence. East doesnt give them authority so no big deal from there side. Otherwise, off the top of my head there is no dogma we just need to work it out with scripture and the fathers.

-3rd point--good question. A big part of it is that the issue is eccesiological as much, if not more than theological (I touched on this a little bit) we are bitter like x-lovers fighting over a cd that perhaps never of us want?


Todd,

great write up. two questions

1.) Why does this matter to either side? Why do we put such importance on it? How does it actually effect our faith or the soteriological process?

2.) Lets say the theologians and councils actually fixed it somehow. How does that change the relations with east and west?

Of course, this is all guess work. But with your unique background I am very interested in what you have to say.

Could you explain the "sabellian" issue. I believe that is the idea that the father and the son get confused. Right? Than, doesnt the idea of "through the son" as an interpretation help the issue by noting the father as the source, but the son "assisting" in the process?

Thanks for the time.

[N/A Gone]

'Socrates'

[quote]I'm not much of a theologian, but knowlege of the truth of God is good for its own sake.
Theology has traditionally been called the "Queen of Sciences," and knowlege of God can never be considered "trivial" or "irrelevent" by the Catholic.[/quote]

-theology, in the sense of the journey to knowledge of God in revelation. And impossing dogma to limit that journey are two different issues. I think a big part of the filioque is the improper place of one instead of the other. The filioque as a viable theological model, while considering that dogmatically we do not have the revelation to know the inner workings of God, is the best option I see. Sad enough, thats not the perspective the debate takes.

[quote]Why the "Filioque" argument may seem trivial or umimportant to non-theological people because it has [b]little practical impact[/b] in how we live our lives, this attitude taken to its logical conclusion can risk reducing Christianity to a purely utilitarian ethos unconcerned with anything beyond the worldly. ("Who cares about all that theology and dogma stuff; it just creates conflict - so long as we love each other and lead good lives, none of that stuff really matters.")[/quote]

thank you. that statement really helps. Ok, now, does the filioque give you any insight on the God-head that would change if we did not have the filioque? Remember, in the west a major purpose of this was to fight arianism as well as explain the difference in the Spirit and Son. (later could be seen as a thought exercise as Augustine states, first part has some importance)

[Laudate_Dominum]

Pragmatism is extremely ugly to me, especially when directed towards questions about God. Truth is beautiful and does not need purpose to have value. Utility or practical applicability "for me" is hardly a foundation for meaning, values or existence.

[N/A Gone]

You know I want more.

Explain please. I honestly am missing what you are saying. You know I will respect it. Please. Share

[Mateo el Feo]

Rev, I don't care what anybody else says. You're so cool.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385247' date='Sep 13 2007, 09:15 PM'][. . .]

Gregory does the same thing in order to avoid the idea of the Spirit and the Son being twins, or the Father as a grandfather of the Holy Spirit. The way he does this is by drawing on an image of the Trinity relating to the first family, citing Adam as the Father, Eve as the Holy Spirit and Seth as the Son. In this the trinity resembles a nuclear family with the Holy Spirit as the Mother of the Son. (Todd- I am citing Golitzin, a Greek Orthodox if you are curious).

[. . .][/quote]
I have read Golitzin's article, and although it is interesting, the views of one modern Greek Orthodox theologian do not equal the Tradition of the Eastern Church on the procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit.

Generation and procession are distinct modes of origin, and so there is absolutely no need for the [i]filioque[/i] in order to differentiate the Son and Spirit. In fact, the Western Scholastic understanding of the [i]filioque[/i] cannot be accepted into the Triadology of the Eastern Church, because it involves the heresy of Modalism, i.e., a confusion of the persons of the Father and the Son. The Father as person is the source of the other two persons of the Trinity, and as St. Gregory Palamas teaches (following in the doctrinal tradition of St. Maximos the Confessor and St. John Damascene), the Father is even the source of the divine essence, which He imparts to the Son by generation, and to the Spirit by procession.

Finally, a better modern Orthodox author on the topic of the procession of origin of the Holy Spirit as person, which is from the Father alone, and the Spirit‘s manifestation as energy from the Father through the Son, and one that is more representative of the Orthodox Church's doctrinal position, is Aristeides Papadakis (see his book entitled "Crisis in Byzantium").

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - St. Gregory Nazianzen's comments referenced by Golitzin are by way of analogy, and as the saying goes, all analogies limp. St. Gregory (in his "Orations" on the Spirit) and St. John Damascene (in his "De Fide Orthodoxa") both say that generation and procession are distinct existential modes of origin, and nothing further is needed in order to distinguish the Son and Spirit. In fact, St. Gregory Nazianzen says that anyone who tries to pry into this ineffable mystery will be "frenzy-stricken."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385247' date='Sep 13 2007, 09:15 PM']Todd,

great write up. two questions

1.) Why does this matter to either side? Why do we put such importance on it? How does it actually effect our faith or the soteriological process?[/quote]
It matters because -- in the theology of the Eastern Fathers -- there is one God because there is one Father, and He alone is the source, origin, and cause of divinity, and not the common divine essence. In other words, hypostasis has precedence over essence in Christian theology. In fact, essence (not only the divine essence, but created essence as well) is unknowable, and beings (including the three persons of the Holy Trinity) are known only through their manifesting energies (see St. Basil, "Letter 234"; and St. Gregory of Nyssa, "The Life of Moses," no. 163, and the "Beatitudes Sermon 6").

Moreover, the Eastern Fathers hold that there is a real distinction between the Spirit's procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin as person, which is from the Father alone, and His progression ([i]proienai[/i]), manifestation ([i]pephenos[/i]), or emanation ([i]proodos[/i]) as energy from the Father through the Son. Thus, as far as the East is concerned, the West is confusing two different realities, i.e., the Spirit's hypostatic origin, and His manifestation as grace (i.e., energy) in the world.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385247' date='Sep 13 2007, 09:15 PM']2.) Lets say the theologians and councils actually fixed it somehow. How does that change the relations with east and west?[/quote]
The only way to fix the problem is for the West to return to the teaching of the Fathers, which distinguishes the procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin of the Spirit as person, from His progression ([i]proienai[/i]) as energy through the Son (see St. Athanasios, "Letters to Serapion," 1:20).

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385247' date='Sep 13 2007, 09:15 PM']Of course, this is all guess work. But with your unique background I am very interested in what you have to say.

Could you explain the "sabellian" issue. I believe that is the idea that the father and the son get confused. Right? Than, doesnt the idea of "through the son" as an interpretation help the issue by noting the father as the source, but the son "assisting" in the process?[/quote]
Finally, the reason that the [i]filioque[/i], as promoted by the Scholastics, is Sabellian, is that it confounds the persons of the Father and the Son. The procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin of the Spirit is from the Father's person, and not from the divine essence that is common to the Father and the Son (and which is also common to the Holy Spirit), and so, there can be no procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) from the Father and the Son without destroying the reality of the Father and the Son as distinct hypostaseis. In other words, the Holy Spirit proceeds ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) from the person of the Father, and not from the Son, or from the divine essence, which is common to all three persons. Sadly, the West has never been able to grasp the fact that [i]ekporeusis[/i] and [i]proienai[/i] are not synonyms.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385247' date='Sep 13 2007, 09:15 PM'][. . .] Could you explain the "sabellian" issue. I believe that is the idea that the father and the son get confused. Right? Than, doesnt the idea of "through the son" as an interpretation help the issue by noting the father as the source, but the son "assisting" in the process?[/quote]
The "per filium" only applies to the progression ([i]proienai[/i]) of the Spirit as energy, and not to His procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin as person, which is only from the Father.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385247' date='Sep 13 2007, 09:15 PM']Than, doesnt the idea of "through the son" as an interpretation help the issue by noting the father as the source, but the son "assisting" in the process?[/quote]
No. In Eastern theology it is hereitical to say that the Son assists the Father in the procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin of the Holy Spirit as person. The [i]ekporeusis[/i] of the Spirit is proper to the Father alone.

[Sister Rose Therese]

[quote]1.) Why does this matter to either side? Why do we put such importance on it? How does it actually effect our faith or the soteriological process?

2.) Lets say the theologians and councils actually fixed it somehow. How does that change the relations with east and west?[/quote]
On a much less academic note:
1. It is a matter of the nature of the Divine Trinity, the center of our faith. Although it may not have an impact on our idea of right or wrong, it has a great impact on the spiritual traditions of both sides. I know the have been many theologians mentioned, but there are also the great spiritual writers like St. John of the Cross. If you have a great love for someone, and you believe something to be true about their very nature, and someone told you something contrary to that nature was true, well... you get the idea. Feelings and opinions are understandably strong. Also, seeing as how this is an issue about the nature of the Trinity, we really can't be satisfied with mere concessions. It would be disrespectful of God, I think, to seek anything less than the truth.
2. To the best of my knowledge the filioque issue and the matter Papal authority/infalliblity, are the two differences that are really keeping us apart. To resolve one of them would be a great step toward unity.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385262' date='Sep 13 2007, 10:34 PM']You know I want more.

Explain please. I honestly am missing what you are saying. You know I will respect it. Please. Share[/quote]
I was just tossing out a little something because I felt like piping in. Don't mind me boss. You know more or less where I'm at with the filioque stuff through our little email exchange a while back.

In all seriousness I do experience nausea at the extent to which reality is judged on the basis of pragmatism in our culture. Perhaps I am somewhat classically minded in that my own bias seems to assume that knowledge which is precisely lacking in practical import is intrinsically higher than that which exists to serve some pragmatic end. Knowledge which does not depend on me or my day-to-day environment for meaning transcends, and perhaps grounds, that which is reducible to some purpose. I am speaking in absolutes (I assure you, I'm not a Sith), but this distinction applies in a general way to real life.

If you are bored I can carry on about this endlessly. My only intention here was to interject with a bit of needless but mild sarcasm. Perhaps that's just my way of indicating that I'm following the discussion but I'd prefer to sit back and watch you go at it with the other folks.