The Filioque Controversy, Part 4

Yet another warning:  if you are seriouosly going to get into this Filioque controversy, you may like to read the three previous posts on Basic Trinitarian Theology first.


Having set forth the Orthodox objections to the Filioque, St. Photios, in his Mystagogy, next sets out to rebut the arguments of his opponents. Here they are.

1.) Scripture calls the Holy Spirit, “the Spirit of the Son”; this implies that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son as well as from the Father.

But it does not. The phrase is referring, above all, to the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Son, the fact that They have in common the divine Essence.

There are also other senses, says St. Photios, in which the phrase, "Spirit of the Son" is perfectly appropriate, none having to do with the Holy Spirit’s origin. For example:

The Spirit remains in the Son.
The Spirit is of the same nature, divinity, glory, and virtue as the Son.
The Spirit overshadowed the Virgin and caused her Child  to be conceived.
The Spirit is of the Son in the sense that He also sends Christ: (Luke 4:18)

Another sense in which the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ is that Christ is the Anointed one (indeed, “Anointed One” is the very meaning of the title, “Christ”.) He is anointed with and by the Holy Spirit. But He is anointed by the Holy Spirit as Savior of the World; in other words, as to His Humanity. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from His Humanity, St. Photios asks? Or is The Son’s Humanity pre-existent from before all ages?

Now St. Photios tackles the grammatical construction of the phrase. Christ is the “Light of the World”, which does not mean begotten by the world. “The Father of the Son” doesn’t mean the Father is caused by the Son.

In holy Scripture, the Holy Spirit is also called :

the Spirit of wisdom (Isaiah 11:2),
the Spirit of understanding (Isaiah 11:2),
the Spirit of knowledge (Isaiah 11:2),
the Spirit of love (2 Timothy 1:7),
the Spirit of a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7),
the Spirit of power (2 Timothy 1:7)
the Spirit of adoption unto Sonship (Romans 8:15),
the Spirit of faith (2 Corinthians 4:13),
the Spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10),
the Spirit of counsel and might, (Isaiah 11:2),
the Spirit of godliness (I Timothy 3:16),
the Spirit of meekness. (Galatians 6:1), (1 Corinthians 4:21)
the Spirit of judgment and fire, (Isaiah 4:4).

“Why do you frown at these things: at the very gifts which He supplies and bestows?” asks St. Photios. “Is it because you would fight against a procession of the All-Holy Spirit from each of these as well?” (57)

In other words, as in the examples above, “of” does not mean originated by. The grammatical construction “[Spirit] of the Son” is a simple genitive of description and not an ablative of origin.

2.) Jesus said to His disciples, “He will glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine and shall announce it to you. All things which the Father has are Mine. That is why I said He shall receive of Mine and shall announce it to you.” (John 16:14-15) “All things” must include breathing forth the Holy Spirit. “He shall receive of Mine” must mean the Son contributes something of His own to the Holy Spirit.

We must remember, when reading this passage, that the one thing the Father cannot give the Son (because the very idea is a contradiction in terms) is His Fatherhood. Fatherhood is not something the Father has, but is, namely the Origin of the Holy Trinity. To suppose the Father gives the Son a share in the procession of the Spirit is to suppose He makes the Son co-Origin of the Holy Trinity, a co-Father. The distinction between the Father and the Son blurs.

As a reading of the whole passage in John’s Gospel makes perfectly clear, Jesus means the Holy Spirit will tell the disciples all the rest of the things He (Jesus) has to say to them, but cannot now, “For you cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12)

“Never, not ever,” says St. Photios, "can we "infer that receiving from someone for the sake of another necessity is identical with receiving existence by procession.” (21)

Furthermore, Jesus said “He shall receive from Mine,” but not “from Me.” Rather, from the Father, with whom Jesus in this passage is claiming equality. The Holy Spirit is receiving these things from the Father, but the Father's things are also Mine, He means.

3.) All the Western Fathers taught the Filioque. We must hold to it to be faithful to our tradition.

St. Photios deals with this assertion at great length, in paragraphs 66-84 of his treatise.

First, he excoriates the Filioquists for leveling this charge at their fathers. He tells them none of their Fathers wished to affirm anything contrary to what Jesus taught. He says that if their Fathers had been rebuked and corrected, they would humbly have accepted the correction. To suppose otherwise is to slander them. As it happens, due to historical circumstances, the Western Fathers never had “your advantages [of being corrected]”. Therefore we can say that if, although “in other things they are the equals of the best [Fathers] they did fall into some error …by some negligence or oversight — for such is the human condition — “ at least it is not the case that when they were corrected they either contradicted the Church or were obstinately disobedient; so why should you do this? St. Photios tells the proponents of the Filioque he does “not admit that what you assert was so plainly taught by those blessed men.” But if is was, their spiritual children ought to “imitate the sons of Noah” and cover their fathers’ shame. Instead, he tells them, ”you publish abroad the shame of those whom you call your Fathers.” (70)

Next, St. Photios lists numerous Western Fathers who clearly did not teach the Filioque, some of whom even contended against it, including some popes of Rome. In fact, the popes resisted the Filioque for centuries, and it wasn’t until the year 1014 that it appeared in Rome with papal sanction. The occasion was the crowning of Henry II. When he arrived in Rome for the event, he noticed that, per the Roman custom, the Creed was not included in the Roman mass. He made a special request for it, in the form to which he was accustomed. Henry regarded the Emperor (himself) as supreme even over Church affairs. The pope, who already believed in the doctrine of Filioque anyway, was very weak and needed the Emperor’s military support. He granted the request.

4.) It was necessary in the West to add the Filioque to the Creed to counter the Arian heresy, which taught that the Son was not God, but a creature.

The East had to contend with Arianism every bit as much as the West. In fact, the Councils at Nicaea and Constantinople, which forged the Creed, met for the very purpose of combating Arianism, and Arianism was the impetus for writing the Creed – without any Filioque.

5.) The Filioque simply clarifies what the Fathers meant. They did not say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, nor did they intend to teach it. THAT in fact is the new doctrine.

The Fathers of the Councils pondered and vigorously debated every single word they wrote. It is inconceivable they meant anything other than what they affirmed not once but repeatedly, over centuries.

This is all the more so, since immediately after the phrase “proceeds from the Father,” they added, “Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified…” If they did not forget “and the Son” in the second phrase, neither did they forget it in the first.

6.) Eastern Fathers said, “through the Son” and that is another way of saying what the Filioque means.

Eastern Fathers also said the Holy Spirit was sent by the Son. But through the Son and by the Son both mean other things entirely.

“By the Son” refers not to the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession, but to the fact that Christ sends the Holy Spirit to us in history. Jesus said, “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of me…” (John 15:26)

“Through the Son” usually refers to the entirely different doctrine of Perichoresis. Perichoresis has nothing to do with the doctrine that the Holy Spirit owes His Being in some way, in any way, in whole or in part, to the Son.

It is quite possible that some Eastern Fathers got it wrong; it isn't as though certain of the Western Fathers had any monopoly on error.  We have a saying, whose origin I do not know, that about 80% of the Fathers got it right about 80% of the time.  But in general, it is safe to say the phrase "through the Son" was not being used to mean anything like the Filioque.

7.) The whole controversy is only a semantic difference; we all mean the same thing, but one has to add the Filioque to the Latin to make it mean the same thing the Greek means without it.

If this were true, the solution to the controversy would be blindingly obvious: let them change their semantics, who think it all means the same thing.  Let them delete the Filioque. Or if the Latin really is incurable without the Filioque, use the Greek. Of course that hasn’t happened. Moreover, the few voices among the Filioquists in favor of dropping the word still insist on retaining the teaching, this demand itself contradicting the assertion that the Creed means the same thing with or without the Filioque.

With the Filioque, God (in our minds) becomes a tri-partite Essence, an abstract, impersonal product of philosophy. Note carefully:  Our salvation is completely undone if it means union with God and God turns out to be an abstraction.

Viewed from a certain perspective, however, there is one very desirable thing about the Filioque. Take the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son and combine it with the title, “Vicar of Christ” (the Son’s regent on earth), and it enhances that title immeasurably, as any bearer of it readily appreciates.

The Filioque Controversy, Part 3

Another warning: This stuff will be a huge bore to you unless you are interested in theology and apologetics in particular.

In the previous part of this series, we examined two broad categories into which the Orthodox objections to the Filioque fall. Here are the remaining two.

3.) The Filioque insults at least one and potentially all three divine Persons.

For “what does the Spirit gain which He did not already possess in His procession from the Father?” If He gained anything from the alleged procession from the Son, then the procession from the Father was imperfect! To assert that the Father does anything imperfectly insults Him.

If we say the Holy Spirit was in need of something from the Son, we are saying the Holy Spirit would have been imperfect without receiving it. He was imperfect by receiving it, as well, because whatever “extra” the Holy Spirit gained from the Son would again violate the principle of divine simplicity. It would also render the Spirit imperfect by making Him subordinate to the Son. Thus the Filioque insults the Holy Spirit either way.

“But if the Spirit received no increment, what is the purpose of the procession [from the Son] which is unable to add anything?” It insults the Son to suppose Him involved in some meaningless and sterile activity.

4.) The Filioque confuses the Hypostases with each other and/or with the divine Essence and/or with the divine attributes, blurring or destroying the distinctions among them.

This is the most basic objection, to which the others can also be reduced.

An Hypostasis (each with His own specific character) is by definition the only thing not shared by the whole Trinity. The Hypostases are the only differentiation within the Holy Trinity. In direct proportion as we begin to blur the distinctions between them, we blur or remove the Threeness; that is, the Trinity itself. There are several ways in which the Filioque causes this to happen.

• The Filioque at least partially transfers to the Son the Father’s sole distinction: being the Origin or Cause. The result is, “that either the Son takes over the Father's role and title or the Father's Hypostasis is imperfect, lacking completion, and that the Son supplements the Hypostasis of the Father. Since [in either case] the Son is made a part of the Father, this truncates the awesome mystery of the Trinity to a mere dyad.” (16)

• The Father causes the procession of the Holy Spirit; that is to say, the First Hypostasis causes it. But if you assert that the procession comes from His Essence instead, then the procession of the Holy Spirit cannot be attributed to either the Father or the Son. They are not essences. They are Hypostases. Worse, if causation is a property of the divine Essence and if the divine Essence is something each possesses, then all Three, to be God, must cause other hypostases (or they wouldn't be God), and these further hypostases must in turn cause more, and so forth.

• The consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity is due to the Father’s being the Sole Cause and conferring His Substance (Essence) upon the Whole. To attribute cause to the Son implies a compromise of the consubstantiality. In other words, it implies the Holy Spirit is receiving two essences, since to receive only one essence from both Father and Son would be superfluous.

• In place of the proper distinctions of the Hypostases, namely Their relations of origin, we are now offered relations of opposition: In this corner, the Father; in that corner, the Son; and connecting the two, the Synthesis, the Holy Spirit. This was St. Augustine’s model when he proposed the Father as Lover, the Son as Beloved, and the Holy Spirit as their mutual gift of love to each other. If we accept this model, then the Holy Spirit becomes the new principle of unity in the Trinity, instead of the Father (which is correct) or the Essence (which isn't).

• Even worse (if that were possible), this Filioque model sees the Holy Spirit as an attribute the Father and the Son have in common. But the Holy Spirit is not an attribute. He is a Person or an Hypostasis, and Hypostasis is precisely the only thing Father, Son, and Spirit do not have in common. Thus, the Filioque confuses Essence, hypostases, and attributes, and the distinction between them all has entirely broken down.

Are you thoroughly confused yet? Yes, that's the point.

In the final part of this series, we shall have a look at the most common defenses proposed for the Filioque, and why they will not work.

The Filioque Controversy, Part 2

Another Warning:  Heavy theological sledding ahead!  Skip this post if you are not into theology.

Why we Reject the Filioque

Most of the objections to the Filioque fall into four broad categories. Here, we shall summarize the first two of them. For more detail, consult the treatise Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photios the Great.  All the quotes in this post are from it, and the numbers in parentheses following a quotation indicate the appropriate section of the Treatise.

1.) The Filioque destroys the equality of rank and honor among the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity .

This happens in two ways.

One is that the Filioque places the Holy Spirit a degree further from the Father than the Son is. The Son differs from the Father by only one distinction, while the Holy Spirit differs from the Father by two, “…and the Spirit's equal dignity will be blasphemed as being inferior to the Son with regard to consubstantial kinship with the Father.” (32)

The other way the Filioque violates the Holy Spirit’s equal rank is by leaving Him as the only hypostasis lacking the honor of giving rise to another hypostasis .

St. Photios, in The Mystagogy, has much indignant fun with the problem of equality of rank and dignity posed by the Filioque, suggesting various ridiculous ways his opponents could remedy the problem – for remedied it must be:

If you admit any other Cause of the Holy Trinity than the Father, says St. Photios, why not say the Holy Spirit also produces the Son?  But this confuses “each hypostasis ' unique property with the others” and mutilates them all.

Or why not assert that the three Hypostases all cause one Another? Then, of course, the Spirit would “participate in His own procession…” (6)

Or why not say the Holy Spirit, like the Father and the Son, also produces an hypostasis , making a 4th hypostasis, which would also have to be granted this honor, making a 5th, and so on ad infinitum. “Otherwise," if you keep the Filioque but do not do any of these ridiculous things to restore the Holy Spirit to equality, "you degrade Him who is worthy of equal honor.” (8)

In practice, the Holy Spirit in most denominations receives very little attention compared with the Father or the Son.  Most people who count themselves Christians do not appear to know Him, have theological work-arounds that carefully eliminate reliance upon Him, and do not know what to do with Him or why He is very important, compared with the Father and the Son.

2.) The Filioque unavoidably attributes a double cause to the Holy Spirit.

Yes, it is unavoidable.  One cannot escape this difficulty simply by asserting that it isn’t so, as when one says The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “as from one principle”.  The Holy Spirit does not proceed from any principle, but from a Person.  The Father and the Son are not principles (let alone one principle) but  two Hypostases; two Persons.  They are one as to their common Essence, but the Holy Spirit does not flow from an Essence.  He proceeds from a Person.  An essence does not cause anything.  Nothing is begotten of an essence, nor proceeds from an essence.  An essence does nothing other than simply to be whatever it is. That is what “essence” means.

A double cause of the Holy Spirit, in turn, means “the lordly perfection of the Spirit is destroyed because it will either be ... divided in two, or it will be a composite.” (42) The Holy Spirit, in fact, is absolutely simple, absolutely and ineffably One, just like and no less than the other Hypostases of the Holy Trinity.

If one is going to wreak havoc upon the principle of the divine simplicity, then why, St. Photios asks (again indulging in much indignant fun),  “…on the basis of the same reasoning, should not a third cause [of the Persons ] appear?” (12) Or why say the Holy Spirit is the only one with two origins? Why not suppose the Others have multiple origins as well? Or, “…how is it that this godless doctrine does not make the Spirit a grandson and thus drive away the tremendous mysteries of theology with protracted nonsense?” (61)

(And if the answer to any of these “why not” questions should happen to be, “Because it isn’t scriptural,” we can only guess with what scorn St. Photios might point out the holy Scripture has already been left behind.)

There is an alternative error to this one, but if one professes the Filioque, one is forced into one error or the other.  Vladimir Lossky points out that one must either "destroy the unity by acknowledging two principles of Godhead, or one must ground the unity primarily on the common nature."  As we pointed out in an earlier post, it is the Father Who is the principle of unity within the Holy Trinity, not the Nature, aka, Essence.   It is the Father, as common Origin of the other Two, conferring His Essence upon the Son and the Holy Spirit.  If we suppose the Essence is the principle of unity in the Holy Trinity, then that Essence "overshadows the persons and transforms them into relations within the unity of the essence.” (Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Crestwood, New York, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976, p. 58.)


To imagine relations instead of Persons is obviously to imagine an impersonal and abstract God. This is not the Father of Jesus Christ, not the God revealed to us. This is a philosophical concept.

The next post of this series will examine two more of the reasons we object to the Filioque.

The Filioque Controversy, Part 1

Warning:  Another recent outbreak of verbal wrangling over this subject in the blogosphere has prompted these posts on the Filioque Controversy.  However, if you are not into theology and apologetics, this is definitely going to bore you to tears.  If you have never heard of the subject before, it is still very likely to bore you to tears.  Even if you are an inquirer into the holy Orthodox Christian faith, you probably have more pressing matters on your agenda.  This is a purely "intra-mural" issue between Orthodoxy and other traditions.

* * *

Introduction

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of me…” (John 15:26)

In the year 325, the Church met at Nicea, in what is known as the First Ecumenical Council (not counting the Council of Jerusalem, see Acts 15), to resolve several issues, especially the Arian Heresy. The Fathers of Nicea hammered out a creed. The section of the Creed dealing with the Holy Spirit read, simply: “And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit.”

The Creed was revised, especially the section on the Holy Spirit, at the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381. That Council wrote the words we say today: “And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.”

In the words of St. Photios, “the second of the seven Holy and Ecumenical Synods directly dogmatized that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The third received it by tradition; the fourth confirmed it; the fifth supported the same doctrine; the sixth sealed it; the seventh sealed it in splendor with contests.” (St. Photios the Great, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, 5)

In fact, the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I, Canon I) declared, “The profession of faith of the holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be abrogated, but it is to remain in force.”

The Third Council even imposed penalties on anyone who would “produce or write or compose any other creed…” The penalties were that a “bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematized.” Definition of the faith at Nicaea, Council of Ephesus, 6th session 22 July 431)

The Fourth Council, at Chalcedon, decreed, “This wise and saving creed, the gift of divine grace, was sufficient for a perfect understanding and establishment of religion. For its teaching about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is complete...” (Definition of the Faith, Council of Chalcedon)

In 589, in Toledo, Spain (Sometimes the date 447 is given, as there were several local/regional councils at Toledo.), a change did however appear in the Creed, in apparent ignorance of basic Trinitarian principles. The phrase, “And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father,” became, “And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” In Latin, “and the Son” is Filioque.

One might not suppose that such a small and seemingly innocuous change could have provoked so many centuries of stormy controversy, and even have played a major part in the Great Schism between Rome and Constantinople, which has never been healed.

Yet, because the Filioque contradicts basic Trinitarian dogma in several key points, it remains unacceptable in Orthodoxy. In fact, the sum of all our objections to it is that it both presupposes and defines a different god, an abstract god, not the God we have encountered.

I'll begin the explanation of why in the next post of this series.

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.