Thursday, October 7, 2010

Filioque

Version 2.0.
*Denzinger 460, 14th Ecumenical Council (Lyons II in 1274), Declaration Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit: In faithful and devout profession we declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two beginnings, but from one beginning, not from two breathings but from one breathing. The most holy Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all the faithful, has up to this time professed, preached, and taught this; this she firmly holds, preaches, declares, and teaches; the unchangeable and true opinion of the orthodox Fathers and Doctors, Latin as well as Greek, holds this. But because some through ignorance of the irresistible aforesaid truth have slipped into various errors, we in our desire to close the way to errors of this kind, with the approval of the sacred Council, condemn and reject (those) who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son; as well as (those) who with rash boldness presume to declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two beginnings, and not as from one.
*Denzinger 463, 14th Ecumenical Council (Lyons II in 1274), Profession of Faith of Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus: He will come to judge the living and the dead, and will return to each one according to his works whether they were good or evil. We believe also that the Holy Spirit is complete and perfect and true God, proceeding from the Father and the Son, coequal and consubstantial, co-omnipotent, and coeternal through all things with the Father and the Son. We believe that this Holy Trinity is not three Gods but one God, omnipotent, eternal, invisible, and unchangeable.
*Denzinger 691, 17th Ecumenical Council (Florence in 1439), the 7/6/1439 Bull "Laetentur coeli" of Pope Eugene IV of Rome: In the Name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; we declare that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also. And since all that the Father has, the Father Himself, in begetting, has given to His Only-Begotten Son, with the exception of Fatherhood, the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son Himself has from the Father eternally, by Whom He was begotten also eternally. We define in addition that the explanation of words "Filioque" for the sake of declaring the truth and also because imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed.
*Denzinger 1084, Profession of Faith Prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII of Rome in 1575: I also believe, and I accept and profess all the things which the holy ecumenical Synod of Florence defined and declared concerning the union of the Western and Eastern Church, namely that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son; and that He has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father and from the Son together; and that He proceeds from both eternally, as from one principle and by a single procession, since what the holy Doctors and Fathers say comes to mean the same thing, that from the Father through the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds, and that the Son, according to the Greeks, is also the cause, and according to the Latins, indeed the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father. All things, however, which are of the Father, the Father Himself has given to His Only-Begotten Son in generation, outside of being the Father; the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son Himself eternally has from the Father, by Whom He has also been eternally begotten. And that the explanation of these words, "Filioque," for the sake of declaring the truth, and because of imminent necessity, has lawfully and reasonably been added to the Creed.


East: Archbishop St. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (190-265; November 17)
*On the Opinion of Dionysius 17 in PG 25B:504C: "I added the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I further added both whence and through Whom He proceeded."
WRH: The Father is the primordial source "whence" the Holy Spirit proceeds, and the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit occurs "through" the Son; see Fr. Jugie, p. 102.

*On the Opinion of Dionysius 17 in PG 25B:505A: "But in their hands is the Spirit, Who cannot be parted either from Him that sent or from Him that conveyed Him..."
WRH: This expression signifies that the Father and the Son are one principle of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit; see Fr. Jugie, p. 102: "Haec locutio significat communitatem possessionis et unitatem principii relate ad Spiritum Sanctum."


East: Archbishop St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (Doctor) (295-373; May 2)
*On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A: "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the Font of Life;' because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit." Greek: "Πατρὶ ὄντα τὸυ Υιὸν τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ ἀγίου Πνεὐματος."
WRH: The Holy Spirit has His existence from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

*Orations Against the Arians 3:25:24 in PG 26:376A: "For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word" Greek: "Αὐτὸς γἀρ, ὥσπερ εἵρηται, τῷ Πνεύματι δίδωσι, καὶ ὄσα ἓχει τὸ Πνεῦμα παρἀ τοῦ Λόγου ὲχει."
WRH: What else does God the Holy Spirit, being simple, have besides His perfect existence? This Athanasian statement means that the Spirit has His existence from the Word; see Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 82. This means that, pace Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot of Constantinople, we say of the Holy Spirit not only "a Filio existere," but "a Filio existentiam habere," to use the words of Fr. Jugie, p. 195.

*Letter 3:1 to Serapion (Shapland 170) in PG 26:625B: "The Spirit has to the Son the same proper relationship as we have known the Son to have to the Father. And as the Son says, 'All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine' [Jn 16:15] so we shall find that through the Son all these things are in the Spirit also."
WRH: Just as the Son has a relationship of origin to the Father, the Holy Spirit has a relationship of origin to the Son, and not only to the Father. The Holy Spirit, therefore, has His divine existence, i.e., "all things," from the Father through the Son; see Fr. Jugie, p. 136. Cf. the following statement, qtd. in ibid.:
*Letter 3:5 to Serapion (Shapland 175) in PG 26:633A: "The Spirit is not outside the Word, but being in the Word, through Him is in God." Greek: "Οὐ γἁρ ἐκτὀσ ἐστι τοῦ Λὀγου τὁ Πνεῦμα, ἀλλἁ, ἐν τῷ Λόγω ὄν, ἐν τῷ Θεῷ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν."

*Letter 1:19 to Serapion (Shapland 111) in PG 26:573CD: "As the Father is the fountain and the Son is called river, we are said to drink of the Spirit."
WRH: Lest anyone object that this temporal mission has nothing to do with the eternal procession, I quote St. Athanasius as implying that the economy points to the inner life of the Trinity:
*Letter to Serapion 1:20 (Shapland 117) in PG 26:580A: the Holy Spirit "is said to proceed from the Father, because it is from the Word, Who is confessed to be from the Father, that it shines forth and is sent and is given".
WRH: We do not understand the Holy Spirit's eternal ekporeusis from the Father except in light of the temporal mission from the Son (Shapland p. 117 n. 16), and the other texts cited show that St. Athanasius has in mind also that the Father and the Son both eternally give existence to the Holy Spirit; see Fr. Jugie, p. 73.

Compare the following two statements to those of St. John of Damascus, qtd. in the section dedicated to that holy Doctor:
(1) Letter 1:20 to Serapion (Shapland 115) in PG 26:577B: "As the Son is in the Spirit as in His own image, so also the Father is in the Son."

(2) Letter 3:3 to Serapion (Shapland 172) in PG 26:628D-629A: "This unction [the Holy Spirit] is a breath of the Son, so that he who has the Spirit says, 'We are a sweet savor of Christ' [2 Cor 2:15]. … But if the Spirit is the sweet savor and the form of the Son, it is clear that the Spirit cannot be a creature; for the Son also, 'being in the form' [Phil 2:6] of the Father, is not a creature."

East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor) (329-379; January 1)






East: Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-394; January 10 East; March 9 West)
*Against Eunomius 1:22 in PG 45:464BC:
as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit's subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself.
WRH: The parallel means that the Holy Spirit derives His hypostatic existence from the Son and not the Father only (Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 158). The same applies to the below statement (Fr. Jugie, p. 158):
*Against Eunomius 1:22 in PG 45:464BC:
as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit's subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself.
WRH: The Son's mediation in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is necessary, since without a relation of origin (the only relations in the Trinity are relations of origin) between the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit would not be hypostatically distinct from the Son. Thus St. Gregory of Nyssa says the following in "To Ablabius on Not Three Gods" in PG 45:133BC:
While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Hypostasis is distinguished from another; — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another through that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the mediation of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.
WRH: The saint confesses the same truth in Sermon 3 on the Lord's Prayer in Johannes F. Callahan, ed. Gregorii Nysseni De oratione dominica; De beatitudinibus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p. 42, in which he expressly says that the Holy Spirit, qua hypostasis, is "from the Son" and not only the Father:
For both the Son came forth from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father. But just as being without cause pertains to the Father alone, and cannot be made to agree with the Son and the Spirit, so also, conversely, being from a cause, which is peculiar to the Son and the Spirit, is not of such a nature as to be contemplated in the Father. Now, as it is common to the Son and the Spirit to exist in a not-ungenerated way, in order that no confusion arise as to the underlying subject, one must again seek out the unconfused difference in their properties, so that both what is common may be preserved, and what is proper to each may not be confused. For the one is called by Holy Scripture "the Only-Begotten Son of the Father," and the word leaves His property at that; but the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" [Romans 8:9]. Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be "of the Spirit," nor does this relative order become reversed.
WRH: The best manuscripts say "from the Son" and not "of the Son;" e.g., the seventh century Vatican 2066 discovered by Cardinal Angelo Mai, S.J. (†1854); see Fr. Jugie, pp. 160-161.



Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus
*Many learned authors believe that Theodoret denied Filioque. Fr. Jugie, pp. 171-172 lists Cardinal Hugo Etherianis (1115-1182), Manuel Calecas (†1410), Cardinal Basilios Bessarion (1403-1472), Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (Doctor) (1542-1621), Fr. Dionysius Petavius, S.J. (1583-1652), Leo Allatius (1586-1669), Fr. John Garnerius, S.J., and Cardinal Joseph Hergenröther (1824-1890). Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J. (1901-2006) of happy memory also says that "Theodoret ... accused Cyril of Alexandria of error in holding it" [NCE 5:719].

*Others argue that his expression in his counter-anathema to St. Cyril's ninth anathema "probably intend[s] to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son," against the Macedonians, in the words of Fr. Anthony John Maas, S.J. (1858-1927). Fr. Jugie, p. 171, lists Monk Michel Le Quien, O.S.B. (1661-1733), Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin, S.J. (1816-1886), and Fr. Theodore De Régnon, S.J. (1831-1893).



West: Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome (Doctor) (February 18 East/November 10 West)
West: Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (Doctor) (March 12 East/September 3 West)
Mystagogy §84 in PG 102:368B,369B: "Gregory [the Dialogist] and Zacharias, bishops of [Old] Rome ... openly and clearly taught that the All-Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [i.e., alone]. … They added the following words a little later: 'The Paraclete--the Spirit--proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son,' Gregory in Latin and Zacharias by correct translation into Greek."

Pope St. Gregory the Great, however, affirms what St. Photius categorically denied. The holy pontiff states the following: "it is certain that the comforting Spirit always proceeds from the Father and the Son" [Dialogues 2:38 in PL 76:204; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 219]. This procession is eternal, because the pope says right afterward, "the Son says that He will depart that the Comforter may come, Who never is absent from the Son."

Is this an energetic manifestation or does the Holy Spirit derive His existence from the Son and not only from the Father? The latter is St. Gregory's view, since he teaches, "the Spirit, even in substance, flows from the Son" [Morals 2:92 in PL 75 ; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 218 & Siecienski, p. 70]. He might have been mindful of the nuance of the Greek term ekporeusis, which points to the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father before He does from the Son "according to authorship," since the Son receives the faculty of active spiration from the Father [St. Bonaventure, Commentary on the Sentences b. I, d. 12, art. 1, q. 1]. Wherefore he says, "The Spirit of the Father and the Son Who issues from both … proceeds ever from the Father" [Morals 30:17 in PL 76:534; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 218 & Siecienski, p. 70]. He also says that the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son in time corresponds to His eternal hypostatic procession from the Father and the Son [Homily 28 on John 20:21; qtd. in Siecienski, p. 70].






East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption) (676-749; December 4)
*An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12 in PG 94:849B: "And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause."
WRH: It is one thing to say that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from the Son simply and absolutely, and another to say that the Holy Spirit does not have existence from the Son as from the προκαταρτικὴν αἰτία/αἰτίας ἀχρόνως/principium primordiale/principium originale/principium primum (Fr. Jugie, p. 190). A priori, it is highly likely that St. John writes in the latter sense, or else he would be at odds with the consensus of the saintly Fathers before him.

*An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12 in PG 94:848D: The Father "is, ... through the Word, the Producer of the revealing Spirit."
WRH: What does this formula mean? "Producer" denotes the Father's causing, through the Son, the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. Three of the saint's other statements indicate that the Holy Spirit, qua hypostasis, indeed proceeds from the Son:

(1) An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:13 in PG 94:856B: "The Son is the Father's Image, and the Spirit the Son's, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after His own Image."
WRH: There is a relationship of origin between an image and its prototype; see St. John of Damascus, Dialectics 6 in PG 94:548C; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 189.

(2) On Heresies in PG 94:780B; qtd. in Fr. Jugie, p. 125: "The Father is the root, the Son is the branch, the Spirit is the fruit."

(3) An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:13 in PG 94:856B: "The Holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son."

*An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:8 in PG 94:832B: "And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son."
WRH: Thus when St. John of Damascus says that the Spirit does not proceed ἐκ (from) the Son, the great defender of icons is not rejecting Filioque, because εκπόρευσις (ekporeusis) can, in its general definition [cf. Rev 22:1], characterize only the relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Holy Trinity, viz., the Father; to say that το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον και του Υιου confuses the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Son is not the αἰτία because He receives His fecundity from the Father, to paraphrase Fr. Congar, p. 136. explanation is that of the most learned theologians and historians of dogma regarding St. John's statements like "non tamen ex ipso existentiam habens" from his Homily on Holy Saturday [Greek in PG 96:605B]. See Fr. Dionysius Petavius, S.J. Dogmata theologica, vol. II: De Trinitate, Book VII, Chapter 17, §8, p. 763 and Fr. Jugie, De Processione, p. 190. Basilios Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472) says the following in his Refutation of the Syllogistic Chapters of Mark of Ephesus, Chapter 37 [PG 161:240AB], qtd. in A. Edward Siecienski, Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, p. 164: "That the Son is not the cause of the Spirit we can also say, for we understand the meaning of cause in the strictest sense, as used in the Greek idiom, whereby cause always is understood as the primordial first cause." In other words, several Eastern Fathers rightly say that the Son is not the cause because they use "cause" in the sense of προκαταρτικὴν αἰτία or αἰτίας ἀχρόνως, which can only be the Father; cf. Fr. Jugie, De processione, p. 148.


West: Pope Adrian I of Rome (r. 772-795)



West: Pope St. Leo III of Rome (r. 795-816; June 12)

2 comments:

  1. I am interested in the study of early christianity, especially the creation and formative years. perhaps the first 200. To show you some of the stuff I have been collecting, and trying to organize, take a look at these two pages, and see if anything interests you;

    http://webulite.dyndns.org:8080

    http://webulite.dyndns.org:8080/?do=showtag&tag=christianity

    I am interested in convos on anything in the early christianity general areas, what are you interested in at the moment? If this is something you are interested in feel free to contact me by email.

    Cheers! RichGriese@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. This blog presumes to tell us that all the Fathers of "the undivided Church," Greek and Latin, espoused the filioque? Has the author of this blog asked himself who it was that first introduced this triadology? Let him read Augustine of Hippo's De Trinitate. There is nothing like in the history of the Church. The filioque is as much a philosophical as it is a theological concept. May the author of this anthology of error ask himself "Who is a Father"? What was there understanding of theology? Did they separate theology from holiness? Until he has immersed himself in the piety of the Fathers, he will never understand them. If it is true that the Fathers, Latin and Greek, share the same Tradition, possess the same mind, how is it that historians declare a division among them? Did the Holy Spirit permit them to defile "the Faith once delivered to the saints" with contradictory opinions on something so sacred and essential as the Blessed Trinity? Think!

    ReplyDelete