Misconceptions about the Orthodox and the Filioque

Over at Ad Orientem the issue of filioque is being discussed some more, and the Catholic blog post that sparked it has even lengthier discussion.

There is a good deal of confusion showing up in these discussions. This post will attempt to clarify certain points about the Orthodox position.

First, let’s be clear that the issues are theological. Someone wrote that the Orthodox bishops felt slighted when the filioque was added to the Creed, and felt snubbed, as if their opinions didn’t matter. Many times (although I didn’t see it in these particular discussions) Catholics imply that the real (or at least main) issue between us has to do with forgiving past wrongs, which we supposedly have yet to do. No. None of this is about bruised episcopal egos or our alleged unforgiving attitude. The authority issue is a genuine difference in ecclesiology, and a foundational difference, at that. It’s huge. But it’s theological, not emotional.

Next, there appears to be a sort of tentative offer on the table, in which, if the Orthodox will become Catholic, they will not be required to recite the Creed with the filioque. It’s a nice gesture, but that’s all it is, a gesture, a gimmick. Eastern Catholics, I’m told, do not have to recite the filioque and never did, but they do still have to believe in it, and that’s exactly what the Orthodox cannot do. For us, it is flat out heresy. Therefore, simply not reciting it would not suffice. Even if we were also dispensed from having to believe in it, we would still be in communion with those who did recite and believe it. Even if they, too, should cease reciting it, yet still believe it, we could still not be in communion with them. The filioque has to be renounced.

Someone said s/he thought the Orthodox objection pertained only to the Divine Essence. But, said the writer, this isn’t so. We all agree the Divine Essence comes from the Father alone, but the Catholic teaching of filioque has to do with the Hypostases (Divine Persons).

The fact is, this distinction doesn't help, doesn't address any of what concerns us. We Orthodox still object even if you say it’s the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father and the Son, and not the Essence.

The distinction we do gladly make is between the Holy Spirit as He eternally is in Himself and His being sent to the world. Clearly He is sent to us by the Son; Jesus plainly says this several times. But this distinction pertains to His mission in the created order, not to His eternal being, which is independent of creation.

Another opinion in the discussion was that clearly, the way we distinguish between the Hypostasis of the Son and the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is by the alleged fact that the Son has His Hypostasis from the Father alone, while the Holy Spirit has His from the Father and the Son. But this is not the Orthodox distinction. For us, what distinguishes the Son from the Holy Spirit is each one’s unique relationship to the Father: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, while the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. Each comes form the Father, but each in a very different manner.

The currently most fashionable canard also made its predictable appearance: that the Latin really doesn’t mean “from the Father and the Son” but “from the Father through the Son.” I have never studied Latin, but one who has tells me such a translation would torture that language. Whether it would or wouldn’t matters little, though, because either way, it’s still not the Orthodox teaching. Yes, I know some Orthodox theologians have used that phrase, but that’s not what the Creed says, which outranks their opinions. It isn’t official Orthodox teaching, at least not as filioquists understand it.

The corollary to this canard is, due to linguistic differences, the Latin creed with the filioque means the same thing as the Greek creed without it. There’s no real difference, it’s all just semantics. Okay, dear Catholics, just drop it, then, if it makes no real difference to you. Strike the word. That would be a gigantic step forward for you and for our ecumenical relations.

But it does matter. The filioque issue isn’t mere semantics and it isn’t mere abstruse, nit-picking cogitations on a rarified abstraction. It matters because it shapes the respective ways we relate to the Holy Spirit, what we understand His role to be, and that in turn means everything, absolutely everything – to both sides.