The filioque is one of the oldest theological controversies in the history of Christianity. Catholics of the Latin rite, praying the Creed during Mass, say the following words:
Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem qui ex Patre Filioque procedit…
And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son…
The word filioque means “and from the Son’. This word did not feature in the Creed as originally promulgated at the Councils of Nicaea in 325 and Constantinople in 381 but was added in the Latin Church in the late sixth century. The filioque was strongly opposed by many in the East and to this day remains one of the principal sources of tension between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Council of Florence in 1439 defined the filioque, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, as Catholic dogma. The Orthodox Church however, rejects this dogma and continues to hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
In recent decades some theologians have dismissed this dispute as a quarrel over words; a number of Catholic theologians have come to see the filioque as a barrier to Christian unity and have even called for it to be suppressed.
Fr Thomas Crean, O.P., in this detailed and scholarly book, argues the contrary. He states:
The present work aims to counter all these trends. The dispute about the Filioque is not, and never has been, a mere quarrel about words: it is a disagreement about the most important of all subjects, God himself. According to a phrase sometimes attributed to the Synod of Rheims in 1148, “whatever is in God, is God” …The spiration and procession of the Holy Spirit is God…in consequence, Catholics and Orthodox are not both right about the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Crean continues: “My approach in this book is, I hope, ecumenical in the truest sense, in that I appeal to authorities and to a tradition that are recognized in common by both parties.”
Views of the Fathers
In putting forward his case, Crean appeals first to the Fathers of the Church. The two principal disputants on the filioque at the Council of Florence, John of Montero and Mark of Ephesus, both accepted the testimony of the Fathers as authoritative. As a result, Crean scours the writings of the Church Fathers in great detail and presents a convincing case that they accepted the filioque. He first cites those Fathers who were involved in opposing the Arian and Macedonian heresies, including Athanasius, Hilary, Basil and the Gregorys of Nazianzen and Nyssa.
Athanasius in his Epistolae ad Serapionem stated:
….as the Son is to the Father, so is the Holy Spirit to the Son.
Athanasius further states:
If the Son, because he is of the Father, is proper to his essence, it must be that the Spirit, who is said to be of God, is in essence proper to the Son.
Crean says that it is clear from Athanasius that “the Son possesses the whole nature of the Father, so the Holy Spirit possesses the whole nature of the Son.”
St Hilary of Poitiers, often called “Hammer of the Arians”, said of the Holy Spirit: “…we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son”. Hilary, in defending the consubstantiality of Father and Son, quoted Our Lord in saying: “All things whatsoever the Father has, are Mine.” By extension these words also indicate that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father.
Fr Crean concludes from the writings of St Gregory of Nazianzen that the Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of the one from whom he proceeds, just as the Father is the Father of the one whom he generates, and hence conversely that if he is by nature the Spirit of the Son, he also proceeds from Him.”
Furthermore, St Ambrose in his famous work De Spiritu Sancto, wrote that “The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son…is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son.”
The Council of Florence
Having established the Patristic basis for the filioque, Crean seeks to counter the claim that the decrees of the Council of Florence, which declared the filioque an article of faith and brought about a brief unification of the Eastern and Western Churches, were in some way invalid and that the council itself was unrepresentative of the whole church.
Fr Crean notes that Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, a leading critic of the council, admits that Florence “was the most representative, as far as its attendance is concerned, in the entire history of Christianity”. Crean goes into considerable detail in examining what is needed for a council to be considered ecumenical and the mechanics of how an ecumenical council works. This, for me, was one of the most interesting parts of the book. Crean states that a majority of the world´s bishops do not need to attend a council in order for it to acquire ecumenicity nor do all the bishops present need to approve its decrees. Crucially, councils also need papal approval. In an interesting history of the early councils of the church, Crean shows that at the Council of Nicaea, of the 318 bishops present only two refused to approve the Creed while three refused to sign the anathemas. At the Council of Ephesus however, while 197 bishops supported the orthodox position, 43 backed Nestorius.
Crean devotes a chapter to refuting the “Byzantine” or “imperio-pentarchic” theory which surmised that an ecumenical council relied for its legitimacy on the support of the five patriarchs (of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria) acting under the governance of the Roman or Byzantine emperor. While Crean admits that the first seven ecumenical councils were called by the emperor, he states that:
His convocation was…material rather than formal; that is, he brought the bishops together so that they might teach the true faith, but did not invest them either as individuals or as a body with magisterial rights.
Crean cites from Church Fathers such as Athanasius and Ambrose in support of this view.
The Council of Florence is, sadly, one of the great tragedies of church history. For here, albeit briefly, unity was obtained between the Eastern and Western churches only to be lost once again following the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. Crean chronicles the story of how this came about showing that both the Byzantine emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople wanted the council to take place. The emperor writing to Pope Martin V stated:
We say that it is necessary for all the holy patriarchs and all the bishops of our provinces to be present…When the sacred council shall have gathered according to the ancient manner and custom of the seven holy general councils of past times, and the truth shall have been sought for without strife, then let whatever…shall be revealed in this holy council by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit be accepted by each side and let the furthest parts of the earth follow. In this way let there be a union of the churches that is firm and unbreakable.
Similarly, the patriarch wrote:
We are writing to your Reverences, with the desire that an ecumenical council be held with all the necessary persons present, according to the ancient manner and custom; that this council should be canonical, free, inviolate, in all ways following the model of the ancient ecumenical councils; and that everything that by God’s help may be unanimously and harmoniously agreed in such a council should be considered as trustworthy, without any doubt or contradiction or dispute.
Both emperor and patriarch supported and promoted the union of the churches brought about by the papal bull Laetentur Caeli of July 6, 1439. On the Latin side, the decree of union was signed by eight cardinals, two patriarchs, eight archbishops, fifty-two bishops, four heads of religious orders, and forty-one abbots. On the Greek side, only two of the bishops present refused to sign while those who did sign represented 25 dioceses across the Byzantine world as well as representatives of all absent patriarchs. Nonetheless, this union was short-lived and subsequent divisions have never been fully healed.
This is a work that demands a particular interest in its subject on behalf of the reader. The book is detailed and scholarly, with lengthy footnotes and useful appendices. The author has a good command of Latin and Greek. Given the tragic disunity that the book describes it is certainly to be hoped that the relevant authorities and theologians would take notice of this book and take inspiration from the example of the Council of Florence to bring about a true unity in the future.
Vindicating the Filioque: The Church Fathers at the Council of Florence
By Fr Thomas Crean, O.P.
Emmaus Academic, 2023
Hardcover, 496 pages
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Fr Thomas Crean O P citing Athanasius, “in his Epistolae ad Serapionem stated as the Son is to the Father, so is the Holy Spirit to the Son” is actually confirming the singular divine substance of the Trinity. One God, three persons all of the same equal substance.
Eastern Orthodoxy has never fully recovered from the heresy of Fr Arius indicated in their emphasis on the eternally begotten divine Word who assumed a body, but of paramount significance, not a complete human nature. Rather a facsimile that has no will. What we have is the divine nature cloaked with flesh. If the historical Jesus of Nazareth is a fully divine nature absent of a fully human nature we de facto diminish our faith in the incarnation defined by Cyril of Alexandria as two complete natures one divine one human.
If that is the case then we were not redeemed by the Word made flesh, but simply by an act of God. To achieve our salvation Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane had to bend his human will to that of God, thus becoming the perfectly obedient Son of God. Furthermore, and most significantly, like Nestorius’ heresy the flesh and blood received from the Virgin Mary would not convey the divine nature. There would be no real presence. I’ve studied the issue closely and fully agree with Fr Crean’s significant book that concisely identifies who the second person of the Trinity actually is.
I am not sure what you mean by “never fully recovered”, Fr Peter. Arian heresy maintained that God the Son is “smaller” than God the Father and that Jesus Christ was “adopted”. In the Eastern Orthodox Church Christ is definitely not “smaller”. By the way, it is common to hear among Orthodox that Catholics via filioque “reduced” the Holy Spirit and this is why He is “neglected” in Church life. I find such discussions unproductive because both Churches believe in the same Holy Trinity i.e. three Persons, same essence and one should really live in (worship within) both Churches before judging what they think and also to look at their sacred images. For example, Orthodox Canon prohibits the depiction of the Holy Spirit as a dove on the icons of the Holy Trinity, precisely because of our faith in the equality of the Persons.
As for filioque, in my opinion this is a rather secondary question being a language issue more than anything. The Roman Catholic Church consists of the Eastern Catholic Churches as well and those Churches still keep the ancient Creed without filioque. In fact, they are encouraged to do so by Rome. We also have a divergence of the Church Father re: that: from the Father, from the Father and Son and from the Father through the Son.
Far bigger obstacle for an ecumenical dialogue is the growing subtle heresy within the Roman Catholic Church which recently found its expression ‘Fiducia Supplicans’ that violates the Creation.
Anna Arius taught that since the Son was eternally begotten, begotten before time, he nevertheless was begotten and is not coequal to the Father. Therefore he could not be coequal to the Father and the source of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds exclusively from the Father. Saint Athanasius as cited confirms that the holy Spirit is the same in relation to the Father as to the Son. If we assume that we reduce the Holy Spirit by attributing his procession from the Son, we reduce the person of Christ, not the Holy Spirit.
Christ is less than the Father insofar as his human nature, not at all in respect to his divine nature. Although the mystery of the incarnation is realized in the hypostatic union of Christ’s complete divine as well as his complete human nature. If we say that the person of Christ did not possess a complete human nature including a will, we deny both the hypostatic union as well as the coequal relation of the Trinity of persons.
The mystery of faith is this perfect union of two complete natures in the one person Christ. I share your disrepute of some doctrines proposed by Pope Francis, although these were not formally confirmed magisterial compositions as were those in relation to the filioque clause.
One “apparent doctrine” proposed by Pope Francis might be the proposition/insinuation that moral doctrine simply does not apply to some exempt (im)moralities. No explicit heresy against doctrine there, just a divorce of “abstract” doctrine from “concrete” practices.
The parallel of this schizophrenic signaling or “teaching” with Nicaea is that in A.D. 325 the Church could easily draw upon the writing of the then-deacon Athanasius—who already had consolidated truths believed from the beginning into his “On the Incarnation” (probably A.D. 318). Today, instead of Arianism (A.D. 319), we find Fernandez-ism also anticipated, and clarified by Pope St. John Paul II in “Veritatis Splendor” (1993).
Too bad that historical and functional literacy is so ideologically dismissed as “backwardist.”
Wondering, here, if in 2025 (the 1,700th anniversary of Nicaea) whether that first ecumenical council will be painted as an inclusive (!) synodal consensus—rather than what it was, an exclusive (!) rejection of Arianism?
Summary: writer James Martin isn’t St. Athanasius.
Fr Peter, I know what you wrote about Arianism and Christology, what I do not know is how Arianism is applied to the Eastern Orthodox Church which condemned Arianism as a heresy (this is why I responded to your comment initially).
As for the modern heresies. Is ‘FS’ Magisterium or not? – I do not know. What I know though, ‘FS’ teaches a heresy (blessings of homosexual couples) while stating it does not violate the teaching of the Church on marriage etc. It would be far better (as wrote before) if they said “we recognize homosexual marriage” because there would be no double bind which paralyzed a human will and rapes it. I observe that what is coming out of the Synod of Synodality to be of the same spirit. And so, as I have said many times on CWR, the current heresy is the heresy of the human psyche – not of grand doctrine. No, it is all about sweeping the good of God with the “nice” of cowardly men. Cowards because they have no boldness to state “the Revelation was mistaken, we now believe that, away with the Revelation” or “no., we cannot do that because of the Revelation” so they choose a middle path of cowards, corrupting as many souls as possible. It is exactly what Our Lord said “You are lukewarm, oh if only you were hot or cold!” Because one can argue with a hot or cold one but not with a lukewarm person who would politely listen to you and say “yes, I see you point, yes” and continue doing what he was doing. A lukewarm one has no reference to anything but his own fluffy “niceness”. (This is what is going on at the Synod of Synodality” by the way.)
Anna, insofar as the cowardly approach of this current pontificate, evident in its promotion of error espoused by key appointments to the Synod, the DDF, the Catholic Church is suffering a chastisement for the collapse of moral standards among the faithful, especially the clergy. Cardinal Carlo Caffarra [deceased 2017] founding president of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family under John Paul’s pontificate was a high profile critic of the Francis pontificate and its counter family support of divorced and remarried in Amoris Laetitia, and for homosexual relationships. A friend of Sr Lucia Dos Santos, one of the three children to whom the Blessed Virgin allegedly appeared [private revelation] at Fatima believed the final battle for the Church would be centered on the integrity of the traditional family.
We’re experiencing a dark time and a test of our faith. Know that whatever course this digression from the truth takes Christ will not abandon the faithful. Our mission is to remain united in the love and faith of Christ, and to witness to him fearlessly whatever the cost for what is due him for his crucifixion and the salvation of those beguiled by error.
Anna I agree with you that the difference in interpretation is not a matter of disunity. Forgive me if what I said offended you. Rather what matters is our substantial faith in the love God has for us. And that faith and love is evident.
Amen!
Well said, Anna. Unfortunately the filioque was the first great “innovation” of the Western Church, which has since introduced more and more of them to fit the times and the moment and desires of particular Popes, supported by another innovation, namely that the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, has absolute authority as opposed to the more egalitarian approach of the Orthodox Church, which has therefore changed relatively little since the fourth century. This course of innovations has gradually separated the Western church from a traditional and relatively unchanging Orthodox Church, which still uses the liturgy codified by St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom in the fourth century, the same century as that of the Council of Nicea. That century, only about three hundred years from the life of Christ and the teachings of Saint Paul, not only saw such minds as St. Basil and Chrysostom, but also Saint Gregory The Theologian. None of them ever disputed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, like the Logos, and is equal in essence to the Father and the Logos (the Son). This capacity for innovation has given us not only the modern mass and made the traditional mas (itself an innovation from the seventh century and departing from the fourth century liturgy and not confirmed until the sixteenth century at the council of Trent) “extraordinary” and according to Bergoglio something for subversives. This progression has now led to the acceptance of blessing homosexual unions “under certain conditions.” I have seen the great altars of our churches demolished and replaced by a table to fit the new mass liturgy. I saw it happen to my local church.
The nature of the Holy Trinity is one of the complete total intimate union of Three Divine Persons. This is the same union by nature that united the Son and His divine nature to His human Incarnation and nature by the Hypostatic Union. Christ is true God and true Man. There are places in the Bible where Christ expresses amazement and where He experiences temptations like those in the wilderness. To me these passages and His Agony in the Garden are showing the actions of His human will and nature. The Passion and Death of Christ were the final acts in conforming His human will to the divine will of His Father.
Not mentioned in the brief review is what is credibly presented (somewhere!), that the filioque was FIRST USED in Spain at the Third Council of Toledo (A.D. 589) to combat Arianism. And, later encouraged by the 9th-century Charlemagne for the same reason. And, then that it was first used at a Mass in Rome by Pope Benedict VIII in A.D. 1014, and folded into the universal Church. In any event, a very tangled and incremental history, to which the Eastern Churches object, partly because they recognize no ecumenical councils after the first seven, and also would have a problem with an action by an 11th-century pope in the West.
From this lay observer, the ISSUE, itself, is substantively more than linguistic since, apart from translation problems (Greek versus Latin), it still bears on the equality of the three Persons of the Triune One. But the issue is also historical since it bears on whether the filioque was explicitly part of the original Creed (while clear enough in the Gospel)—and from the Eastern mindset, whether it is really necessary to spell everything out. And yet, whether precise clarity can really be avoided in the face of reductionist heresies: Arianism, Monothelitism, Nestorianism.
Babel, anyone?
And, TODAY, with Tucho, what the meaning of “blessing” and “couple” is? Or with an anti-pope President, what the meaning of fetal infanticide is? Or with the great desktop theologian Billy Boy Clinton, even what the meaning of is, is?
In a GENERAL AUDIENCE on “The Filioque Debate,” on November 7, 1990, Pope John Paul II was confident, concluding with this paragraph: “After the Council of Florence the West continued to profess that the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father and the Son,’ while the East continue to hold to the original formula of the Council of Constantinople. But since the time of the Second Vatican Council a fruitful ‘ecumenical dialogue’ [italics] has been developing. It seems to have led to the conclusion that the formula ‘Filioque’ does not constitute an essential obstacle to the dialogue itself and to its development, which all hope for and pray for to the Holy Spirit” (in “The Pope Speaks: The Church Documents Bimonthly,” vol. 36, no. 2, Our Sunday Visitor, 1991, pp. 114-117).
(Hoping Fiducia Supplicans isn’t a new fly in the ointment, so to speak.)
Our human minds can’t comprehend how incredibly awesome the Trinity is, how it functions, and how there can be three distinct Persons, yet 1 God and 1 will. That apparently is the way God designed it for us. Since the Council of Florence declared the Filioque as Catholic dogma, then I’m not going to argue against it. Not going down that road. Also, I believe that the bigger issues preventing full communion between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches is the date of Easter/Christmas, the Immaculate Conception, and the Pope as the vicar of Christ of the universal Church.
A quote from St Augustine “Faith is to believe what you do not see. The reward of this faith is to see what you believed”.
We know who God is and what he did for us 2000 years ago. Let’s just live our lives, attend Mass as often as possible, and make it to Heaven.
As a footnote to the controversy of the filioque clause, for the Christian the Christ of the Gospels and the witness of the Apostles is sufficient for receiving the gift of faith as well as all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Intellectual arguments and refinements are fine, although the power of the Word revealed in the written word was designed by the Father to bring us safely home.
Was the Creed in its original form as stated at both Nicea and amended at Constantinople deficient?
Did the Western Church simply have the right to amend the Creed with addition of the “filioque” without the East?
Can the Creed doctrinally formed at an Ecumenical Council be amended without another Ecumenical Council?
Is the Holy Spirit “the bond of love” between Father and Son as stated in many Western theological texts, hymns and popular writings, or is He a full person of the Holy Trinity to be adored and glorified with the Father and the Son?
Is this controversy really about the supremecy of the Bishop of Rome to decide to add to the Creed at the expense of the Eastern Churches?
Was Florence really about the decline of the Eastern Empire and the desire of the Emperor to seek financial and military help from the West?
The political issues are not the issue, rather it’s whether the Filioque doctrine has theological merit. The original Nicean Credo: “I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father”. If Christ is God from God, true God from true God, consubstantial with the Father the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well as the Father.
“If I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you” (Jn 16:7). He is a person to be adored, meaning an entity in which we receive both Father and Son because each person of the Trinity is one and the same God. Which is why Christ told Philip, If you have seen me you have seen the Father. Since Christ ascended into heaven he sends us the Advocate [the Holy Spirit], consistent in being with both Father and Son, who now assumes the character of our protector and defender [intercessor], a Spirit of love who pleads our cause with the Father.
With all due respect, Fr. Peter, it seems I see some dodgeball.
It seems to me that theology takes into account tradition. Tradition takes into account history. History takes into account earthly power and authority. Power and authority consider political personages. The pope consider politics and personages.
It seems Fr. Khouri poses ‘ecumenical’ questions, apparently directed toward a brother-priest who questions practices of the RCC. It seems 1 Pet. 3:15 would apply: “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.”
Forgive me, please, if I offend you here, elsewhere, now or in the past.
No meiron you don’t offend me. Fr Khouri’s political questions have relevance insofar as the conditions in which a doctrine was presented. For example, I overlooked Khouri’s questions rather curtly on both politics and doctrine until you responded.
Insofar as the political background there’s the looming dynamic of the original Greek predominance and the accruing of authority by the Latin. Although the issue from a strictly theological perspective was the Greek Orthodox theology of the person of Christ and his human nature, particularly the absence of a human will that the Latin Church assumed essential to the entire mystery of incarnation and salvific mission of Christ the Messiah, the perfectly obedient Son of Man.
Certainly there was prejudice and politics on both sides that was touched on by Peter Beaulieu. I posted a couple of more responses to Fr Khouri that I hope makes up for my negligence in responding to his queries. And they are legitimate questions. A main interest is that we learn from each other in our dialogues. In doing so we hopefully present to the reader something of value regarding what we believe and what speaks to truth.
In response to forgiveness you have my love in Christ Jesus.
Also Fr Khouri, in Latin liturgy, the Sanctus during the Mass references the glory of God filling heaven and earth. Moral theology in the Latin Rite refers to this glory as the Holy Spirit, who confers the gifts of the Holy Spirit, eminently noted when Christ breathed upon the Apostles giving them the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive or retain sins. The gifts received through the Holy Spirit are many, wisdom, fortitude for example. Most significant are knowledge of those principles of behavior necessary for our salvation that supersede the natural law [based on the premise that there’s nothing contained in man that of itself can achieve his salvation]. In the sacrament of penance the priests say “his Son has poured out the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins”. Music can effectively reach our understanding. I recommend the Gregorian Latin Missa de Angelis. A fine rendition of the Sanctus is sung by Kitty Cleveland.
As a bi ritual priest of the Catholic Church I am aware the the thrice holy hymn, the Sanctus has the common meaning of the glory of the Holy Spirit Who is “everywhere present and filling all things, the treasury of blessings and giver of life.”
I do not see how this theologically bolsters the use of the addition of the filioque.
Father, in reality only my last two statements (in the form of questions) relate to the political situations. The others refer to theological and ecclesiological issues regarding the filioque.
Fr Khouri, you’re correct. The Sanctus may be related by inference. A direct reference is Jn 20:21 Again Jesus said to them, Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you. When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld”.
Another “If I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you” (Jn 16:7).
Also Fr Khouri, it’s essential to recognize that Christ possesses two complete natures, divine and human. The Son in accord with the hypostatic union is one person, not two. We cannot speak solely to his divinity as true God when we speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit as if it relates exclusively to the divine nature. The reason is the unity of natures in one person. By inference we can use the example of the paralytic, when Christ says, to prove to you that the Son of Man has the power to forgive sins [the Jews had thought to themselves that only God can forgive sins] I say to you [the paralytic] get up take your mat and go home. Fr Khouri I expect and hope you find these examples satisfactory. And then there are other examples such as the consubstantiality of the three persons of the Trinity.
Father, the first four statements (couched as questions) do not relate to political issues regarding the filioque.
You mention the “glory” spoken of in the thrice holy hymn (or Sanctus). I don’t know about the idea from RC moral theology, but both East and West affirm in their liturgical texts that the glory of God fills all things. In the Byzantine Churches we say in prayer that the Holy Spirit is “everywhere present and filling all things, treasury of blessings and giver of life…”
How the Holy Spirit acts and lives among us (when we cooperated with Him) leads the process of salvation to divinization.
As a bi-ritual Catholic priest I am not sure I understand what moral theology has to do with the filioque. I never heard the connection made in seminary or grad school. I am not denying it, I’m just saying I see no connection.
For more than four hundred years the Creed as composed at Nicea and Constantinople was sufficient and seen a complete statement of divinely inspired faith. As those Councils stated nothing is to be added to or take from the Creed as completed at Constantinople it does no seem that one part of the Church can add to an ecumenical Creed.
And Father, no one better understands than an Easterner (given the Christological heresies that arose there) the hypostatic union only found in Jesus Christ.
Father Khouri, the decision to add the Filioque Clause to the Nicene credo was in necessary response to elements in the East who diminished the divinity of Christ, for one, the belief that Jesus of Nazareth possessed one will, the divine. That rendered the historical flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth a man and nothing more. That the divinity alone was eternal, not the Jesus Christ born into our world by Mary.
The hypostatic union teaches two complete natures in Christ belonging to a unique and singular divine person of the Trinity who entered our world.
I appreciate your asking these questions.
I am a layperson with advanced catechetical and scripture study, some theological coursework, and much self-educated reading. I am a cradle Roman Catholic, a TLM devotee. I should like to address your fourth question.
The Holy Spirit indubitably is a fully complete and perfect person equal in majesty and glory to the other persons of the Holy Trinity. The 1962 Roman Missal teaches this during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass each Sunday at: 1) the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity (said at the majority of Sundays throughout the year), 2) the 52 times when the priest and/or laity make the Sign of the Cross, 3) the Gloria wherein “God” is praised, blessed, adored, glorified, and thanked and where the Holy Ghost is described as together with Jesus Christ, holy and most high, in the glory of God the Father; 4) the Creed describing the Holy Ghost as the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father (and etc.) WHO, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON IS ADORED AND GLORIFIED; WHO SPOKE BY THE PROPHETS; 5) in the Offering wherein water and wine are offered “in the Unity of the Holy Ghost”; 6) The Prayer to the Most Holy Trinity which requests the Holy Trinity receive our oblation; 7) the Final Doxology proclaims all honour and glory to Christ and the Father in “the unity of the Holy Ghost”. This same ‘unity of the Holy Ghost’ appears again in the Libera Nos, and 8) the post Consecration Prayer for Sanctification and again in the Prayer for Grace directed to Jesus “who, according to the will of Thy Father, with the cooperation of the Holy Ghost, …”who livest and reignest, with the same God the Father and the Holy Ghost, God,…”; or “Who with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, livest and reignest God, for ever and ever.”
To say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son does not seem to imply that the Holy Ghost is somehow subordinate. This, to my view, implies rather that as God is love, as the Father is God, and as the Son is God, and as the Holy Spirit is God, all are Love, and Love proceeds from them All.
I’ve often contemplated the conundrum of Christ announcing at His Ascension that he must return to the Father (so that?) (??in order that?) (?before) the Holy Spirit would be sent to the disciples. My simple understanding is that Jesus MUST first completely and perfectly fulfill the exact letter of the Father’s will in order that the explosive sanctifying power of God’s manifest gift to man can then be given through the working and mission of the Holy Spirit.
IOW, this release of the Spirit’s power is analogous to man’s satisfying, fully and completely, God’s law of justice (on earth or in purgatory) before God will bestow beatitudinal glory and power. Until then we can only know that it will be a most glorious power, now only imagined as a bond of love between love. In no way can this perfection be less than any other Trinitarian person’s perfection. It is shared perfectly with men made perfect by Him.
“Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem qui ex Patre Filioque procedit…”
In The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, to say that The Holy Ghost Proceeds from The Father And Not The Son, is to say that The Son does not reciprocate To The Father, The Same Spirit Of Perfect Love He Receives In His Heart From
His Father, in The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.
Only God Exists In Relationship As A Communion Of Perfect Life-affirming and Life-sustaining Salvational Love.
“Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem qui ex Patre Filioque procedit…”
In The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, to say that The Holy Ghost Proceeds from The Father Alone, And Not From Both The Father And The Son, is to say that The Son does not reciprocate The Same Spirit Of Perfect Love to The Father, that The Son Receives From The Father, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
Only God , The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), Is, In Essence, Perfect Life-Affirming And Life-Sustaining Salvational Love.
Filioque can not be just about words. The ones who say “obstacle to unity” are fixing obstacles in the ecumenical interchanges.
It is part of the God’s nature or essence (eternally), on the one hand and, on the other, it conditions our faith about how a) we are created in God’s image and likeness, b) we are saved in the plan of Redemption and c) we participate in the eschatological consummation. And all these are given from -through- the Son.
Other things flow including the primacy of Peter over all including Andrew; the indissolubility of marriage; the prohibition against divorce (“Divorce does not belong in My Kingdom, you shall not let it enter”); the celibate priesthood; the proclamation of the Kingdom (not “preaching the Spirit”); etc.
Grave defects among the discipleship of the East. Mea culpa, the West also at fault. The West outstripping the East.
“Other things flow including the primacy of Peter over all including Andrew; the indissolubility of marriage; the prohibition against divorce (“Divorce does not belong in My Kingdom, you shall not let it enter”); the celibate priesthood; the proclamation of the Kingdom (not “preaching the Spirit”); etc.
Grave defects among the discipleship of the East.”
What saddens me here is not so much your lack of knowledge of the Eastern Orthodox Church’s theology and practice but that you appear not to know the history and practice of your own, Roman Catholic, Church. You appear not to know that the Eastern Catholic Churches which belong to the Catholic Church have predominantly married priests – just like the Eastern Orthodox Churches do. It also appears that you are unaware of the fact that celibacy became mandatory in the Roman Church in 6th or 7th century and that faith had little to do with that. Until then your priests were married; even more, the Church had married bishops until a certain time.
Likewise, you appear to be unaware of the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church has always recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome but not in a form defined later by Rome (a dogma).
I will leave aside a question of divorce because to an Orthodox a Catholic annulment is an equivalent of our ecclesial divorce. I beg you not to answer “no, it is not” because to us it is, just a different way to do the same thing. We have different mindsets; yours is more legalistic and ours is more economia. I must say that our ecclesial divorce is not less difficult to obtain than your annulment, especially nowadays. Because I have been worshiping in the Roman Catholic Church for a decade I can see the Roman Catholic logic; you (I presume) have not been worshiping in the Eastern Orthodox Church for a decade and so you cannot see it. I cannot stress it enough that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox “coming together” can happen only via knowing each other from inside, especially worship and mystical theology.
I am going to say something very unpopular. If I was a Roman Catholic I would not be preoccupied with “what is wrong with the Eastern Orthodoxy” but would try to understand where Eastern Orthodox got it right. Perhaps there is a correlation between a huge number of married priests with many children (fathers in a literal sense of this word) and almost zero cases of child sexual abuse in the Eastern Orthodox Church? By no means we (Eastern Orthodox) are against priestly celibacy, we have plentiful priest monks. But having an option to marry prevents perversions via bringing more straight men to priesthood and also – very importantly! – a wife provides emotional support for a priest and this is much needed (the emotional loneliness of a Roman Catholic priest is recognized by Roman Catholics themselves). If you are angry with what I wrote please keep in mind that married priests were your own tradition and still is now, in the Eastern Catholic Churches. There is nothing wrong with a priest being married. I do not recall the name of the text (possibly ‘Didache’), but one of the early tests of the Church says that a bishop must be efficient in managing his own family, a wife and children, first – if he is not then he cannot manage his (bigger) office.
I’d just like to acknowledge your reply, Anna, enough to avoid a falling out between sister and brother.
I am aware of all those things which is why I said what I did; and so what I wrote there attends with the force of what it says.
You are right when you say you are Catholic. All of us have to come to terms with those changeless and binding truths, from Catholics through to non-Christians. Orthodox -East- fell away “legally” at an earlier point in time. West got into trouble “non-legally” over a longer span during/through the modern age.
Part of the West going astray is trying “to be like East to avoid modern pitfalls”. Also insufficient. Some in the East dazzled by all the attention getting. Not the program.
The way forward for both is the filioque.
“It is “Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost “ (Filioque), that Holy Mother Church, outside of which there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), Exists.
There can only Be One Jesus The Christ, as affirmed by The Filioque.
The yearning for unity, to be with The Father – seems same is very much an aspect of Latin Church, thus often seeming to be ready to give in, to accept much from The East that can seem discordant with prevailing traditions and customs, as long as they do not seem to be discordant with The Truth !
The deep interest in filioque itself and ? mostly from the Latin side can even be seen as a Spirit instigated yearning to resolve the issue, to help resolve many other issues – of East as well ! The blessing of the virtue of hope thus used so that it does get multiplied – the controversial blessing for persons who seem in ‘hopeless ‘ situations – no less than same, that a touch of The Spirit to trust one is loved by The Father to bring The Light that they can get over the slavery to sin !
The need for expilict definition – using the power in The Word / Logos as a weapon against powers set on destroying the faith in The Son , using forced pacts such as the pact of Omar in 637 A.D ., its unholy ties / effects ? persisting as the ‘spiritual worldliness’ – with focus on wordly ways and dominion , using even The Church authority – Ukriane and Russia as latest examples of what Bl.Mother warned as errors of Russia !
The Divine Will revelations – would they too be an antidote for the fear/ confusion – IIRR , in the little good book on Holy Spirit , there is mention that the Kingdom of God is equivalent to Holy Spirit , thus ? the Divine Will ..
Can see how the recognition of such a truth can do much to alleviate the fears of those who find the ‘impossibility’ of Three Persons as One God !
https://ignatius.com/the-holy-spirit-fire-of-divine-love-hsfdlp/
https://www.benedictinesofdivinewill.org/uploads/3/4/3/2/34324596/is_the_divine_will_approved_by_the_church.pdf
Hoping that the author of the above book on Filioque and many such esteemed persons with support of the saints that have gone ahead – Pope Eme Benedict included would bless The Church to see the Light of Truth in filioque and related issues , to help thwart the father wound and its many manifestations on the Latin side as well , to help Russia too in its long standing history of destructive forces against family and life there !
June 13th – blessed coincidence of Feast of St.Anthony, Patron of lost things, of the poor and of Portugal – also anniv. of the second apparition of Bl.Mother to the Fatima children during which she asked for prayers –
‘ lead all souls to heaven ‘- may graces in all such help The Spirit to be known and loved , to be more fruitful world over – in the efforts of the Holy Father too , to reach out to ‘all souls’ !
If you desire to heal a schism, you must begin at the beginning. The denial of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost is the source of all heresy, for to deny The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is To Deny The Divinity Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, which is apostasy.
Woe to us!