Catholic-Orthodox Accord on Filioque

[Apotheoun]

Let me begin by saying that I have no intention of debating this issue with anyone here at Phatmass; instead, I am posting the following information in order to explain why the Eastern Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) reject the addition of the [i]filioque[/i] to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The Eastern patristic tradition in Triadology, unlike the Scholastic tradition of the West, is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle, source, and cause of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their existential being (i.e., their [i]hypostaseis[/i]) solely from Him; and so, they are -- as a consequence -- [i]homoousios[/i] with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word [i]homoousios[/i] itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal relationship that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the term [i]homoousios[/i] involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) from the Father alone by generation, and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father's person, and not from the divine essence, which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons ([i]hypostaseis[/i]). The same also holds with the personal ([i]hypostatic[/i]) procession of origin of the Holy Spirit, which is called [i]ekporeusis[/i] in the Greek, because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father's person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and not from the divine essence, which -- as I already indicated -- is absolutely common to the three divine persons ([i]hypostaseis[/i]). Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally ([i]hypostatically[/i]) that the other two persons ([i]hypostaseis[/i]) of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal existence and their co-essential nature.

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son), or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Father and the Son work together as "a single principle" in spirating the Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons ([i]hypostaseis[/i]) of the Father and the Son, by giving the Son a characteristic (i.e., the power to process the Spirit) that is proper to the Father specifically as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]).

Finally, in Byzantine Triadology a distinction is made between the Holy Spirit's procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin as person, which comes only from the Father, and His manifestation ([i]proienai[/i]) as energy (i.e., as uncreated grace), which comes from the Father through the Son. Sadly, the Scholastics of the medieval West have confused these two distinct realities, and that is why the Eastern Churches refuse to accept as legitimate the Western alteration of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

[Anomaly]

Seems like all the Roman Catholics are stymied. Their only solid argument is they choose to adhere to the opinion the Roman Church is Supreme and MUST be obeyed and all others must be in submission to the Pope in all matters of faith and morals.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1199897' date='Feb 18 2007, 03:59 PM']Seems like all the Roman Catholics are stymied. . . .[/quote]
You are correct, at least to a certain degree, because the theological and philosophical presuppositions underlying Byzantine Triadology make it impossible for a Byzantine Christian to accept the [i]filioque[/i].

Ultimately, the North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation's recommendation that the Roman Church remove the [i]filioque[/i] from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed is the only workable solution to this ecumenical problem. Thus, it is my hope that the Latin Church will eventually accept this recommendation; and, in fact, it should be noted that in at least one magisterial document (i.e., [i]Dominus Iesus[/i]) the Vatican did remove the [i]filioque[/i], so perhaps this will eventually be done for all uses of the creed by the Roman Church.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Apotheoun,
Glad to see you back. Could you give any background on what the Latin theologians had in mind with the word "filioque"? Would their original intent be irreconciliable to Eastern theology? Can the Latin Church really reverse this addition (that is, is it a matter of infallibility or something) or is it simply theological opinion that, while tenable in western theology, can be put aside without contradicting any councils or papal statements? What do you think of the Catechism's discussion of the filioque, as I think it suggests that conflict between the two positions is not necessary?