“Filioque” means “division”
You know a topic is complex when a “very basic introduction” to it runs over 8,000 words. But when the topic is the filioque, it is difficult to reduce the subject to sound bites.
For those who are unaware, the filioque is Latin for “and the Son” (contrary to my post title) and it refers to the part of the Nicene Creed (which is actually the Creed of the Council of Constantinople) in which Catholics state, “I believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds from the Father and the Son” . In the original text, the phrase “and the Son” was not included (technically, the truly original text of the Creed, this whole line wasn’t even included). Many centuries later it was added in the West in response to heretical tendencies which wanted to subordinate the Son to the Father. This addition caused all sorts of problems between the East and the West and became one of the key points of division between the two.
Dr. Peter Gilbert, an Orthodox professor of Church History, gave the above-linked introduction to the filioque recently and I recommend it to anyone interested in East-West relations. Dr. Gilbert mostly focuses on the history of how the filioque came to be inserted into the Creed, noting both why the West came to accept it as theologically valid and why they felt it was legitimate to add it to the Creed.
My only complaint with Dr. Gilbert’s introduction is that it is too short! I think Dr. Gilbert would do a great service to the Church if he were to expand on this introduction and make it a complete book on the subject.
Update: I am currently reading “I Believe In The Holy Spirit” by Yves Congar, and he has an in-depth analysis of the entire filioque issue. I think this passage sums it up nicely:
Subscribe to my RSS feedWhat we have to aim at and what can, in fact, be reached is a recognition both of the unity of faith on both sides of Catholicity and of the legitimate difference between the two dogmatic expressions of that mystery. Each expression is consistent in itself, and each is impossible in the categories and vocabulary of the other side. In the course of ten centuries of discussion, neither side has succeeded in convincing the other or in persuading it to accept its point of view. There is no chance that this goal will be reached in the future. In fact, we may say quite unambiguously that this is not a goal to be pursued.
Both Eastern and Western Christians are baptized in a common faith. For both, ‘the Spirit is confessed as the third Person-hypostasis of the one divine nature-essence and consubstantial with the Father and the Son’. Both confess the Father as the Principle without principle or beginning of the whole divinity. Both profess the Son as not unrelated to the Father in the production of the Holy Spirit.
The expressions of this faith, however, are different, especially in the matter of the third of these points…
I would conclude…with a statement by Mgr. Damaskinos of Tranoupolis, who is the Director of the Orthodox Centre at Chambesy… ‘It is both possible and necessary to explain, on the one hand, the formulations of the Greek Fathers and, on the other, those of the Latin Fathers, including the Filioque, and while respecting the originality of each, to draw attention to the ways in which they are in agreement. From the fourth century onwards, the Filioque came to form part of the Western tradition, but it was never regarded as an obstacle to union until that union was ended for other reasons.’
I Believe in the Holy Spirit, Volume 3, Yves Congar, pp. 201-202
We had an interesting situation in our chapel last summer (we’re a military chapel…things can get a little weird).
One of the summer students was a Greek Orthodox semenarian! Of course it would be more likely for us to host him than the Protestants, right?
Anyway, my husband wondered what he did when we recited the Creed. I have to say I never noticed what he did.
This fellow was even expected to preach to us (Yes, I know. Believe me, I’ve said my piece), just as the Catholic students do.
I did not get the opportunity to ask the young man what he thought of the whole thing.
I remain unconvinced that the Filioque controversy is, for the most part, simply a misunderstanding of the terminology of two theological traditions, in spite of Gilbert and Congar’s assessments. The Latin formulation does not appear to have been entirely unknown in the East. Aquinas found several passages in the Greek writers that contained this same fomulation (see, for example, Summa theol. Ia, q. 36, a. 2, sed contra and Contra errores graecorum pars 2, cap. 10). I am assuming both the accuracy of the translations Aquinas used and of the Angelic Doctor’s memory.
The fact of the matter is that one is in error, if one both affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son and denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. One can affirm either formulation and aviod error, if one understands the first formulaton in a certain way; but one cannot affirm the first and also deny the second without denying that the Son is a co-principle of the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Son is a co-principle of the procession of the Holy Spirit; for the Holy Spirit is the mutual Love of Father and Son.
Tertullian
“I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
“[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged” (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).
Hilary of Poitiers
“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
http://staycatholic.com/early_church_fathers.htm
Ben,
I don’t think they are saying it is simply a misunderstanding of terminology. Congar specifically believes that the two sides come at the mystery from two different angles, thus seeing it differently. Put simply (and not entirely accurately, but hopefully usefully), the West starts with God’s one substance and from that proceeds to His three persons, while the East starts with the three hypostases and proceeds to the one ousia. These different viewpoints lead to alternate – but not necessarily contradictory – theologies.
For example, say that a wall is black on one side and white on the other. If you are standing on one side you will say, “the wall is black”. If you are standing on the other side, you will say “the wall is not black”. Both are correct, from their viewpoint. Of course, this analogy is limited, so we can’t take it too far. But it gives some idea of the issues involved.
I do think it problematic when the East says that the filioque is a heresy, period. Obviously, this is not acceptable. But I don’t think it is necessarily wrong to say that the filioque is unacceptable within the context of Eastern theology. In fact, I would say that the Catholic Church implicitly affirms that statement by the fact that they do not require the Eastern Catholic Churches to recite the filioque during their liturgies.
Eric,
I applaud your “holding high” Peter Gilbert who is one extremely conscientious and painstaking scholar, and he has the scars to prove it.
I subscribe wholeheartedly to your reply to Ben, and would mention the following as hopefully an additional point.
The principle of contradiction says that two things cannot both be, and not be, in the same sense.
I believe that the West has focused on the Trinity primarily from the standpoint of Christ and His Nature, deriving knowledge about the Father and Son from Him, in an almost phenomenological way. The East, without neglecting Christology at all, have focused on the Trinity more or less on its own terms.
I think they both address facets of the jewel that is our Faith, but by contemplating different facets of an Infinite Mystery, whose “facets” are numberless.
I appreciate the comments. You are right to point out that there is a difference in perspective, as well as terminology. My point was that this difference in perspective leads to a difference in terminology. One must always be mindful of these differences when explaining one’s position to the other side.
You did not read my comment sufficiently carefully; and your analogy of wall colors is not apropos. I did not say that the Greek formulation was, taken by itself, necessarily in error. I agree that the East’s formulation could be correct from the Eastern perspective, if, as I wrote above, it is understood in a certain way (i.e., that the procession of the Spirit begins with the Father in respect to dignity or priority (but not in respect to time or causality) but that the Son is, nonethless, also a co-principle of this procession). When the Greeks deny the Filioque, however, they deny that they have an acceptable understanding of their own formulation, since they necessarily deny that the Son is a co-princple by denying the Filioque. They show that they have a significantly different position, regardless of perspective and terminology; and a significant difference is all that is required to be in error in this matter. Truth and falsehood are never necessarily separated by a contradiction. A contradiction simply requires that one position must be incorrect.
The Greek reaction to the Latin position necessarily reflects upon its understanding of its own position, for both positions refer to the same reality. The two wall colors do ultimately belong to the same wall.
I think that the difference focuses as much on the way that they modification was adopted as the substance of the modfication. The Eastern process is one of church councils in which a clear consensus is reached. The Latin method is the pronouncement of the Bishop of Rome, without the input of the Bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria or other lesser luminaries of Christendom. The East recognizes the Bishop of Rome as a Bishop being first but among equalls when it comes to theological issues.
Furthermore, the East will tell us that they have preserved the faith once and forever given, while the Romans will admit that they have “improved” the faith with “additions”.
Obviously I would side with the East on all of the above. No person or assemblage of persons can improve the faith once and forever given to us by Jesus and the Apostles.
Ben,
I would agree that as Catholics we cannot find the wholesale rejection of the filioque in Orthodox circles acceptable. But I do not agree that their rejection of it means that their own understanding is necessarily faulty (although I do think when they add the word “alone” after the Father that they are in fact outside of their own Tradition on this matter). But clearly just not having the filioque included in the Creed is acceptable, as that was the norm for centuries – the problem lies in rejecting the filioque as heretical.
Also, even as a Catholic I am uncomfortable with your language of Son as “co-principle”. To me, that makes it sound like the Son and the Father are equally the principle of the Spirit (which is exactly what the East rejects), but in the West we agree that the Father is “principle without principle” and the ultimate origin (not in time, of course) of the Trinity.
Randall,
Clearly there are two issues involved with the filioque: whether it is valid theology as well as whether it was validly inserted into the creed. But I don’t think the insertion is as clearly one-sided in favor of the East as you indicate.
For example, the Council of Constantinople in 381, which is the origin of today’s Creed, didn’t invite the Bishop of Rome (or any Western bishop, for that matter), so how can that be considered a truly “conciliar” decision? Augustine didn’t even know about the Council when he was writing thirty years later.
Also, the Council of Ephesus’ condemnation of any change of the Creed – which is often invoked by Eastern Christians in this context – was explicitly talking about the original Nicene Creed, which the Council of Constantinople already modified!
I don’t disagree that, in Eastern ecclesiology, the insertion of the filioque is problematic. But I do not think it was an egregious offense in light of the history as some Orthodox today make it out to be.
We are in agreement. To omit the Filioque is not the same as to reject it. The Nicene Creed, as originally formulated, was, of course, not in error. The later Greek rejection of Filioque is erroneous.
To state that the Son is a co-principle with the Father in the procession of the Spirit is not to deny that the Father is without principle; nor is it to deny that the Father is the principle of the Son. It is simply to confirm that there are two principles of the Spirit. I can understand your hesitancy to accept my characterization of procession, given how brief and incomplete it is. I recommend that you read Aquinas’ explanation of this topic. I accept and adopt his position on this matter.
The patristic sources mentioned (as well as Gregory Thaumatourgous (sp)) above seem to me to describe the position that both sides actually share. The procession is from the Father, THROUGH the Son. There is no co-principal with the Father, and I don’t believe the 6th c Coucil of Toledo felt there to be. As an Orthodox Christian in a Roman Catholic family, I don’t believe either side (nor the Fathers, nor Scripture) would find disagreement with the language “through” (in English at least). Please fill me in if anyone sees it to be otherwise.
“I don’t believe either side (nor the Fathers, nor Scripture) would find disagreement with the language “through””
Those who find disagreement with the language “AND” are those who want to keep up schism. If you find a whole bunch of Fathers in the West using the Word “AND.” that should be enough the Satisfy anyone who might have qualms about the orthodoxy of such language.
The words “and” and “through” are liable to misinterpretation, and both can have and heretical meaning, and and orthodox meaning.
Btw Eric the Eastern Catholic are not required to say the Filioque, but they are required to believe it.
The Sixth Council of Toledo does not treat the matter of procession in sufficient detail, at least according to Denzinger’s excerpt, for one to conclude whether or not the Council would accept the expression “co-principle” as accurate. Mansi’s collection is not readily available for me to make a more thorough search of the Council’s proceedings.
The Second Council of Lyon does, however, address the topic in sufficient detail. It rejects the the use of “co-principle,” understood in at least one sense (i.e., of two spirations), declaring: “Spiritus Sanctus aeternaliter ex Patre et Filio, non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus, sed unica spiratione procedit.” This is not the sense in which I use the term.
Aquinas allows for the use of the term in the sense in which I employ it at Summa theol. Ia, q. 36, a. 4, respondeo & ad 7um but actually prefers the term you have suggested, Ryan and Eric, describing the procession as “pater per filium spirat spiritum sanctum; vel quod spiritus sanctus procedat a patre per filium, quod idem est” (Summa theol. Ia, q. 36, a. 3, respondeo).
I will certainly not continue to use the term co-principle with so great a cloud of witnesses urging (and more than urging in the case of the Council of Toledo) me to do otherwise. I repent of the poor choice of words and thank you for your fraternal correction.