Why Does The Filioque Debate Matter?

[Aloysius]

I'm extremely flattered that Rev asked me to comment on this thread. I hope I do not completely disappoint.

The Father is the principal of the Godhead, from whence all divinity flows. The Vatican has recently confirmed that this has always been held by Rome, that the filioque did not intend to contradict that. And so, there is a way in which we must understand that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; that the Son's origin is in His being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit's origin is in His proceeding from the Father ("origin" not being used in a temporal way, for there was never a time when the Father was and the Son was not, or when the Father was and the Holy Spirit was not; the Three have always been). And so, there was nothing defective in the original creed, nor in the understanding given by the original creed-- an understanding that the Holy Spirit's procession comes from the Father only.

These definitions of the Persons of God in the Trinity deal with the interior Theology of God, not the Economy of God. When we say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Son to the Church, we are speaking of the Economy of God, not His interior existence. So this is not an adequate way to explain away the filioque. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son to the Church, certainly, but the procession from the Father is the interior Theology of God whereas the procession through the Son to us is the Economy of God, the way He deals with humanity, the way He gives His Spirit to the Church.

However, I believe that there indeed is value to the filioque in understanding the interior theology of God, even in the sense of procession. But not in the sense of principal procession; principal procession is solely of the Holy Spirit from the Father. There is an aspect of the nature of the Holy Spirit, however, which I believe can be described as a procession in reciprocity. Eastern theology will certainly reject this, but I believe it can be defended against the charge of modalism by this distinction: that the principal procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone, who is the Principal of the Godhead.

The Holy Spirit can be understood as the love shared by the Father for the Son. That love is so immense and so infinite, that it is an entire eternal infinite distinct co-equal person. If this is true, that the infinite love proceeding out of the Father for the Son overflows as the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, one must ask: does not the Son also have infinite love for the Father? It would seem that one would have to then have a fourth person. But this would be damnable horrid heresy.

So this is how I understand the filioque

The infinite love of the Father for the Son is expressed by the Holy Spirit.
The infinite love of the Son for the Father is also expressed by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit proceeds in principal from the Father, as the Source of all Godhead, as the Father's love for the Son.
In reciprocity, He proceeds back from the Son to the Father as the Son's love for the Father.

Two aspects of the Holy Spirit's nature; one is His principal procession from the Father, His "origin" as it were (but not a temporal origin, mind you). The other, the procession of recipricol love for the Father from the Son.

I realize that the East will not accept this definition, surely; but I do not think it to be accurately described as heretical modalism. I think it to be a valid way of understanding the trinity, and that debates should continue to rage until the end of time on the subject because it's a matter of extreme importance; but I do not consider those who do not hold to this definition to be heretics (they simply have not added an additional aspect of understanding the Trinity to their perfectly accurate understanding of it), nor should the east consider those who hold to this definition as heretics, in my opinion. To me, there is great value in both approaches, even the approach which excludes this definition, for that approach stresses monotheism in a powerful way. personally, I think this definition stresses the co-equality of the Persons of the Trinity in a powerful way as well which is very important and should not be abandoned.

The only way rejecting this understanding can be heresy, in my opinion, is if it's Arianism. Other than that, I think the debate should continue; I do not expect it to end before the End of Time itself, and I do not think it should be a perpetuation of the Schism; I think there is room for both people who hold to the earlier understanding and people who hold to the understanding which includes the filioque

The problem with the filioque is that it does change the essence of what the Creed was saying. The Creed was describing the principal origin of the Persons of the Trinity; the principal origin of the Son being that He is begotten and the principal origin of the Spirit being that He proceeds from the Father; now, with the filioque, it describes how the Holy Spirit comes from the Father to the Son and "then" (disclaimer: this is not a temporal "then") from the Son back to the Father. It is saying something different, but something accurate. The pristine original form of the Creed still has a great deal to teach us; but I also believe in its distinctly modern form.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Rev - My own position is an attempt at something of an East-West synthesis. Although I don't believe in merging distinct theological traditions per se, I do believe that genuine rapprochement demands mutual understanding and reconciliation on the dogmatic level. While I find my own private interpretation of the filioque to be pretty promising, none of my theology buddies, Eastern or Western, have been particularly excited about my theories.

I need to just sit down and write up an essay so that I have a handy statement of my view to copy and paste at moments such as this. I don't have the motivation or lucidity to get into it at this moment.

Pax et Caritas amigo.

[Aloysius]

L_D, what think you of my position? In a sense it might be considered a type of East-West synthesis, or at least a way of understanding both the East and West as having important distinct perspectives, without really being an East-West synthesis (I too do not believe in merging distinct theological traditions)

In response to STM, the citation of councils held in the West post-schism in regards to East West debates and what should be held by each without heresy is sticky. I might agree with you as regards its dogmatic necessity; but I also believe to a certain degree in the Ratzinger Principal: that the restoration of unity should not require anything more than what was required to sustain unity before the schism. And so, I can see a theological tradition which does not expand into the understanding of the filioque that the West has as not necessarily being heretical. I do not see it as a rejection of dogma, though they might not believe in it and it might indeed be dogma, rather, I see it as the older fully accurate understanding of the interior life of the Trinity without elaboration into certain aspects of the dogma. What they reject is modalism, they do not necessarily reject, but simply do not hold beleif in, the filioque as a non-modalist doctrine.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1386444' date='Sep 16 2007, 01:09 AM']L_D, what think you of my position? In a sense it might be considered a type of East-West synthesis, or at least a way of understanding both the East and West as having important distinct perspectives, without really being an East-West synthesis (I too do not believe in merging distinct theological traditions)[/quote]
You hit upon the problem of the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity which is in need of clarification before a full understanding can be attained IMHO. For many the filioque doctrine is applicable to the economic Trinity but the Western formulations err in applying it, presumably without qualification, to the immanent Trinity. This is a serious charge.
The view you expressed toward the end of your post would seem to imply that the filioque is merely a theologoumenon -- this is an error in my opinion. In my view the filioque is an entirely dogmatic issue. Even if one asserts that the filioque is a theologoumenon the question of whether this formulation contradicts the Trinitarian theology of the early oecumenical Councils – and orthodoxy in general – remains on the table. Rather than beating around the bush the question must be asked directly: is the filioque doctrine as defined by the Roman Catholic Church and professed in her creed for well over a thousand years heretical? That will always be the issue regardless of how one might like to sugar coat the matter. Opinions and theologoumena have no place in the solemn symbol of the Church’s faith, and that category of theologoumenon cannot be applied so broadly that the question of orthodoxy is sidelined. A genuine and acceptable theologoumenon cannot contradict orthodox belief and a question as central to pneumatology and trinitarian theology as the filioque is certainly not peripheral to orthodoxy.

You have a lot of good insights and I'm not trying to pick your post apart by any means. I just suspect that we differ somewhat on this topic in that I believe that authentic reconciliation demands treating questions such as this with absolute gravity. If I have misunderstood you I apologize. What is your take on this?

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1386442' date='Sep 16 2007, 02:07 AM']Rev - My own position is an attempt at something of an East-West synthesis. Although I don't believe in merging distinct theological traditions per se, I do believe that genuine rapprochement demands mutual understanding and reconciliation on the dogmatic level. While I find my own private interpretation of the filioque to be pretty promising, none of my theology buddies, Eastern or Western, have been particularly excited about my theories.

I need to just sit down and write up an essay so that I have a handy statement of my view to copy and paste at moments such as this. I don't have the motivation or lucidity to get into it at this moment.

Pax et Caritas amigo.[/quote]


It is 2am, so I have not made a response to your post, or the great work that St. Thomas and Aloysius have provided. Instead I want to say 2 things and respond in the morning

1.) Good to see you not posting in drag

2.) I do not mean to sound selfish here, but part of my desire is to have the great minds of Phatmass read what I have wrote and tell me what is good, and what needs to be taken out. Part of my training in protestant theology involves reading sources and spitting out my reaction to it. Regardless of how that might test with someone else. With my filioque paper I have read from some great authors (not my whole reading list, but my ano bib list is below) but as my thoughts grow as a neophyte I need it tested against the Iron that I find here. So please, read what I wrote on this thread and Destroy it if it needs it, and tell me what is good if it needs it. Of course, this is only a short part of what I have wrote, but the basic idea is presented.

Here is my ano-bib list. (if anyone wants a copy of any of these I have them all in pdf or word format)

Coffey, David . “The Roman 'clarification' of the doctrine of the filioque.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 5 (2003): 3-21.

Daley, Brian E . Revisiting the "Filioque": roots and branches of an old debate.” Pro Ecclesia 10 (2001): 31-62.

Del Colle, Ralph . “Reflections on the Filioque.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34 (1997): 202-217.

Dulles, Avery, S.J. “The Filioque: What Is at Stake?” Concordia Theological Quarterly 59 (1995): 31 – 48.

Erickson, John H . “A welcome new study of a very old issue.” St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48 (2004): 89-92.

Golitzin, Alexander . “Adam, Eve, and Seth: pneumatological reflections on an unusual image in Gregory of Nazianzus's "Fifth theological oration".” Anglican Theological Review 83 (2001) 83: 537-546.

Letham, Robert . “East is east and west is west? Another look at the filioque.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 13 (2002): 71-86.

Marshall, Bruce D . Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox theology. Modern Theology. 20 (2004): 23-50.

Molnar, Paul D. “Response to David Coffey.” Irish Theological Quarterly 68 (2003): 61-65

Tavard, George H . “A clarification on the Filioque.” Anglican Theological Review 83 (2001): 507-514.

North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation . “The filioque: a church-dividing issue.” St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48 (2004): 93-123.

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit.” (Clarification)

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1386452' date='Sep 16 2007, 03:48 AM']You hit upon the problem of the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity which is in need of clarification before a full understanding can be attained IMHO. For many the filioque doctrine is applicable to the economic Trinity but the Western formulations err in applying it, presumably without qualification, to the immanent Trinity. This is a serious charge.
The view you expressed toward the end of your post would seem to imply that the filioque is merely a theologoumenon -- this is an error in my opinion. In my view the filioque is an entirely dogmatic issue. Even if one asserts that the filioque is a theologoumenon the question of whether this formulation contradicts the Trinitarian theology of the early oecumenical Councils – and orthodoxy in general – remains on the table. Rather than beating around the bush the question must be asked directly: is the filioque doctrine as defined by the Roman Catholic Church and professed in her creed for well over a thousand years heretical? That will always be the issue regardless of how one might like to sugar coat the matter. Opinions and theologoumena have no place in the solemn symbol of the Church’s faith, and that category of theologoumenon cannot be applied so broadly that the question of orthodoxy is sidelined. A genuine and acceptable theologoumenon cannot contradict orthodox belief and a question as central to pneumatology and trinitarian theology as the filioque is certainly not peripheral to orthodoxy.

You have a lot of good insights and I'm not trying to pick your post apart by any means. I just suspect that we differ somewhat on this topic in that I believe that authentic reconciliation demands treating questions such as this with absolute gravity. If I have misunderstood you I apologize. What is your take on this?[/quote]
I think I went too far in trying to minimalize it as an issue in the end. See my response to STM for why I tried to go that far... but I do not think I should have. Like I said, it should be of great importance... it is indeed a dogmatic issue.

I attempted to define why the filioque was not heretical, I indeed am open to the idea of it as absolutely dogmatic and of grave importance to the faith. I just have a great pessimism as to whether the debate will ever be solved by mortal men and a certain degree of faith in the Ratzinger principal of reunification; believing that neither formulation contradicts

For if "procession" is defined as principal procession, the East is right to say the Holy Spirit does not "proceed" from the Son. But it is not a principal procession, but a reciprocal procession from the Son back to the Father, that I believe is being defined by the filioque. I guess what I was driving at was that both forms of the creed are valid, saying different things; but there remains the necessary dogmatic belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds back from the Son to the Father "after" (not temporal) His principal procession from the Father to the Son.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1386444' date='Sep 16 2007, 01:09 AM']In response to STM, the citation of councils held in the West post-schism in regards to East West debates and what should be held by each without heresy is sticky. I might agree with you as regards its dogmatic necessity; but I also believe to a certain degree in the Ratzinger Principal: that the restoration of unity should not require anything more than what was required to sustain unity before the schism. And so, I can see a theological tradition which does not expand into the understanding of the filioque that the West has as not necessarily being heretical. I do not see it as a rejection of dogma, though they might not believe in it and it might indeed be dogma, rather, I see it as the older fully accurate understanding of the interior life of the Trinity without elaboration into certain aspects of the dogma. What they reject is modalism, they do not necessarily reject, but simply do not hold beleif in, the filioque as a non-modalist doctrine.[/quote]
I don't think we entirely disagree but my own modus operandi on such matters is not a minimalistic striving for the "least common denominator", but a striving toward a full and authentic oneness of belief and worship. The Church cannot simply agree to disagree on central theological beliefs. This does not of course mean that the whole Church ought to have one liturgical rite and one monolithic theological expression (this would be a perversion), but if the whole Church, East and West, cannot pray the same creed without feeling ashamed what kind of unity of faith are we talking about? If East and West simply agree to disagree on fontal theological affirmations of this kind what would keep them from diverging more and more?

While there are no doubt people who would like to see the Roman Church abandon the filioque and admit to having gone astray for an age, there are no doubt a great many Orthodox Christians who would be happy to see the doctrine explained and perhaps qualified in a way that makes sense to them. This is what I believe to be the right approach. I see the Ratzinger Principle that you alluded to as applicable primarily on the level of Church structure and administration. Even a setting of wide theological pluralism demands a shared faith that can be expressed by a common creed. Although the Orthodox may never include the filioque clause in their liturgical creed, I don't see how true Ecclesial reconciliation can occur so long as the age old Roman expression of faith is misunderstood and stigmatized. If I am completely wrong on this than the various ecumenical meetings, dialogues and joint statements on this matter are practically for naught.

The less ambitious goals may be more realistic, expedient and apposite in the here and now, but I don’t think that this more lofty desire is altogether nonsensical. Even if some ecumenical group of theologians were to come up with a definitive solution to the problem which was authoritatively sanctioned and publicly embraced, it would likely be a long time before this reconciliation would be internalized and see full fruition. And of course there are many more issues besides the filioque. I will agree with you that on many theological issues strict agreement is hardly necessary. Many differences are perhaps comparable to differences within the various legitimate schools of Roman Catholic theology. I just don't see the filioque as being in this category because of its dogmatic centrality, manifestation in the creed, and the historical aspects of the debate.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1386457' date='Sep 16 2007, 02:02 AM']I think I went too far in trying to minimalize it as an issue in the end. See my response to STM for why I tried to go that far... but I do not think I should have. Like I said, it should be of great importance... it is indeed a dogmatic issue.

I attempted to define why the filioque was not heretical, I indeed am open to the idea of it as absolutely dogmatic and of grave importance to the faith. I just have a great pessimism as to whether the debate will ever be solved by mortal men and a certain degree of faith in the Ratzinger principal of reunification; believing that neither formulation contradicts

For if "procession" is defined as principal procession, the East is right to say the Holy Spirit does not "proceed" from the Son. But it is not a principal procession, but a reciprocal procession from the Son back to the Father, that I believe is being defined by the filioque. I guess what I was driving at was that both forms of the creed are valid, saying different things; but there remains the necessary dogmatic belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds back from the Son to the Father "after" (not temporal) His principal procession from the Father to the Son.[/quote]
Yes, if the Church was to clarify the filioque doctrine in such a way that the Orthodox Churches could say definitively that this teaching is not heterodox it would be enough. This would not mean that the Orthodox must insert the filioque clause into their creed and adopt Roman Catholic theology proper. There are aspects of Orthodox theology which strike Western ears in a problematic way, and yet if the Church of Rome were to recognize doctrines of this kind as acceptable (which has happened in many cases either directly or indirectly) it would not mean that Rome has suddenly adopted the Eastern theological tradition. I don't want my comments above to be misunderstood as a kind of theological absolutism. It is about mutual understanding, recognition and respect; it is not about doing violence to expressions of the one Christian Faith that share equally in apostolic dignity and ecclesial right.
You speak of a desired unity comparable to that of the early centuries, but in those centuries the whole Church was capable of participating in ecumenical councils and with one voice proclaiming the true doctrines of the Holy Trinity.

[Apotheoun]

The [i]filioque[/i] – as understood in the West since the rise of Scholasticism – is, and always will be, unacceptable to the East, because it inexorably falls either into a form of Sabellian Modalism or Ditheism.

That said, I will now explain in greater detail what I mean by saying this:

In Eastern Triadology God the Father is the sole [i]personal[/i] cause of the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Son by generation ([i]gennesin[/i]), and of the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Holy Spirit by procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]), and this monarchy of the Father is why there is only one God. Now, connected to the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father is the teaching of the Cappadocians (i.e., St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzus, and St. Gregory of Nyssa) that there are only two kinds (or types) of properties or characteristics within the Holy Trinity: (1) [i]hypostatic properties[/i], i.e., properties that are unique to only one [i]hypostasis[/i], and by which the three divine [i]hypostaseis[/i] are distinguished from each other; and (2) [i]essential properties[/i], which are common to all three [i]hypostaseis[/i], and which are revealed to man through the divine energies that manifest God’s presence in creation.

Now bearing in mind this twofold theological distinction (i.e., the distinction between [i]hypostatic properties[/i] and [i]essential properties[/i]), without a separation, it becomes clear that in Eastern Triadology it is impossible for two [i]hypostaseis[/i] of the Trinity to possess the same property or characteristic without the third [i]hypostasis[/i] also possessing it, because anything that is held in common by two of the divine [i]hypostaseis[/i] must necessarily be possessed also by the third divine [i]hypostasis[/i]. So, if the Father and the Son are held – in some sense – to be a single principle (i.e., cause) in connection with the existential origin (i.e., the [i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit as [i]hypostasis[/i], it follows that the Spirit too must be one principle with them in His own procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]), which means that the Spirit must cause His own existence, and this is clearly nonsensical. Moreover, if one were to argue that the Father and the Son act in unison as a common principle, while simultaneously excluding the Holy Spirit from this common essential act, it follows that the Father and the Son would be essentially distinct from the Holy Spirit, because by existentially causing the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Holy Spirit they would possess a common (i.e., essential) property that the Spirit lacks, which means that the Holy Spirit would be essentially less than the Father and the Son, and essentially other than the Father and the Son in connection with His own procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin as [i]hypostasis[/i], and since – in the Western teaching – the Spirit does not possess this common essential property it follows that He is not fully one God with them, and this teaching involves the heresy of Ditheism. Additionally, the idea that the Father and the Son act as a co-principle (or a single principle) in the procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin of the Holy Spirit as [i]hypostasis[/i] involves not only the sin of Ditheism, but also Sabellian Modalism, because according to the Eastern Fathers the existential procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit is proper to the Father as [i]hypostasis[/i], i.e., it is not a common essential property of the Godhead, but is a hypostatic property of the Father alone, and as such it cannot be shared with the Son without confusing the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Son with the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Father, and clearly the Eastern Churches will never accept the idea that the Father and the Son are a co-principle in the procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Spirit as [i]hypostasis[/i], since this necessarily entails the heresy of Modalism.

Sadly, the whole Scholastic theory of the Trinity is predicated upon a confusion of [i]hypostasis[/i] and essence ([i]ousia[/i]), and so the East will never be able to accept the [i]filioque[/i] as it has been formulated in the West during the course of the second millennium (i.e., at the Councils of Lyons II and Florence), because to do so would involve the absolute repudiation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed and the Cappadocian theological framework established during the fourth century in order to protect the Church's profession of faith from both Sabellianism and Eunomianism.

Finally, taking into account what I have already said, it is clear that the East will reject anything that makes the Son a cause (immediate, mediate, or instrumental) in the existential procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Holy Spirit, because the Spirit as [i]hypostasis[/i] receives His eternal origin from the Father alone, and not from or through the Son. Nevertheless, the East has no problem saying that the Spirit as energy, but not as [i]hypostasis[/i], progresses ([i]proienai[/i]) from the Father through the Son, and this eternal progression as energy is not merely an economic reality, but is an immanent reality within the Godhead itself, because the divine energy is not reducible to God’s manifestation in creation, but pre-exists creation as its cause, flowing out from the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and thus revealing the eternal consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostaseis within the Godhead.


Recommended reading:

David Bradshaw. [b]Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom.[/b] (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pages 214–220.

Richard Haugh. [b]Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy.[/b] (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975).

M. Edmund Hussey. [b]The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas.[/b] (Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services, 1972).

John Meyendorff. [b]Byzantine Theology.[/b] (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979), pages 91-94.

Aristeides Papadakis. [b]Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283–1289).[/b] (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983).

Aristeides Papadakis. [b]The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy.[/b] (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994), pages 232-238 and 379-408.

Duncan Reid. [b]Energies of the Spirit: Trinitarian Models in Eastern Orthodox and Western Theology.[/b] (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997).

A. Edward Siecienski. [b]The Use of Maximus the Confessor's Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439).[/b] (Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005).

Edited September 16, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385494' date='Sep 14 2007, 12:00 PM']Maybe if you could explain what you see as the difference in “generation” and “procession” from the father. To a laity it would seem you are saying the same thing. Or perhaps elevating the son to a level above the Spirit.[/quote]
No, I cannot explain the nature of the difference, because as St. John Damascene said, "[T]he Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous" [St. John Damascene, "De Fide Orthodoxa," 1:8] In other words, that there is a difference between generation and procession can be known because it is revealed in sacred scripture, but the nature of the difference, i.e., what it entails, cannot be known because it has not been revealed.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385494' date='Sep 14 2007, 12:00 PM']You cite that in Eastern thought the monarchy of the father is primary. I agree here, but what exactly is heretical about saying the son “could” participate in the spirit, and the spirit “participate” in the son? I understand if you say this is not something we “can” know, but for a thought exercise could that be seen as non-heretical from the east? Father is still primary as the source and the monarchy. I think in this we do not have a confusion of persons or of who the source is either. Remembering that for us to bind this theology to our language at all, even in your points, it is limiting.[/quote]
The Father as hypostasis is the one ([i]monos[/i]) principle ([i]arche[/i]) of the Trinity, and so the Son cannot participate in this reality, because for Him to do so would entail His being the Father. The introduction of the Son as a co-principle with the Father in the existential procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin of the Holy Spirit is -- to put it simply -- a form of the Sabellian heresy.

Edited September 16, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385494' date='Sep 14 2007, 12:00 PM']If the filioque is offensive because it is a theology that deals with the inner-working of the divine, why does the east have any theology of the inner workings? Wouldn't the concept of generation and procession be seen as theology of the inner working? Why doesn't the eastern side simply work in the economic and leave the inner workings as a mystery? Seems like a “eat your cake-keep it” situation. Are the eastern theologians not just as guilty of working in a theological realm we might have no place in?[/quote]
The [i]filioque[/i] is not offensive because it is an attempt to delve into the "inner workings" of the Trinity; instead, it is offensive because it is contrary to divine revelation, since it involves the destruction of the monarchy of the Father as the sole cause of divinity, while it also entails a confusion of [i]hypostasis[/i] and essence ([i]ousia[/i]) within the Godhead. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the dogma of the Trinity is a revealed truth given once for all to the Church, and as such it is not open to logical development or rational speculation. The Eastern Churches do not accept the modern Western theory of "doctrinal development."

Edited September 16, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385494' date='Sep 14 2007, 12:00 PM']Now, with objection 1. What if we modeled the filioque in a way that the Father is still the monarchy. He is the only source of “life”(my language is not near as good as yours, so please bear with me) but that the father allows the son to “assist” him with the spirit, and he allows the spirit to assist him with the son? Without writing my entire paper out to support this could you tell me if that would help? The son is not a co-principle because the “source” is the father and from the Father. And there is not a ditheism because there are not 2 separate sources. The father is the source, the Son participates with the Father. (This is all a thought exercise, not trying to impose it as revelation or dogma) When the Son participates he is not blending characteristics with the father who is the source, he is just participating.[/quote]
Your proposals were rejected by the East more than 700 years ago at the Council of Blachernae.

That said, it is the Father alone as [i]hypostasis[/i] who generates the Son, and it is the Father alone as [i]hypostasis[/i] who processes the Spirit, and the principle of Paternal monarchy excludes any kind of co-principle or shared properties among the three divine [i]hypostaseis[/i]. As I have already indicated in a previous post, the [i]hypostaseis[/i] of the Trinity are distinct only by their [i]hypostatic properties[/i], and these properties cannot be seen as shared without falling into the heresy of Sabellian Modalism.

The Spirit as [i]hypostasis[/i] proceeds ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) only from the Father, and not from or through the Son.

Edited September 16, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385494' date='Sep 14 2007, 12:00 PM']You said that in the east it would be heretical to say the Son assists the father in the origin of the spirit because the origin is the father's alone. Not to sound like a kid, but why? How do we know that the Father in acting as a trinity allows the other members to participate in the origin of the other members? Father as source, and the other members participating in each other as we see in the economic sense? What is the revelation the east has to make this statement?[/quote]
The whole doctrinal tradition of the East is predicated upon the Biblical idea that there is one God because there is one Father. In other words, the East rejects the Neoplatonic views of St. Augustine, who held that there is one God because there is one divine essence. Moreover, in Eastern theology -- as I am sure you are already aware -- the essence of God is utterly unknowable and imparticipable, and God is known only in His [i]enhypostatic[/i] ([i]personal[/i]) energies, which flow out from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit (see St. Basil, "Letter 234").

In other words, the theology of the East is personalist, because it founds the divine unity upon the [i]hypostasis[/i] ([i]person[/i]) of the Father; while the theology of the West, under the influence of St. Augustine, is essentialist, because it founds the unity of God upon the incomprehensible divine essence.

That said, the East will never accept the [i]filioque[/i] as taught by the Scholastics, because to do so within the Nicene framework established by the Cappadocian Fathers necessarily involves embracing the heresies of Ditheism and Sabellian Modalism.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385494' date='Sep 14 2007, 12:00 PM']If a western understanding of the filioque was developed that did not involve Modalism. Would it be cool?[/quote]
No. The [i]filioque[/i] is not a problem simply because it entails the heresy of Modalism; instead, it is a problem because it makes the Son a [i]cause[/i] of the Spirit's existential procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin as person. Sadly, the West continues to confuse the Spirit's hypostatic procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]), which is from the Father alone, with His progression ([i]proienai[/i]) or manifestation ([i]pephenos[/i]) within the divine energy, which is from the Father through the Son.