Grabbed this from a Facebook group I recently joined. I thought it was very thought provoking. I'm not smart enough to say whether it's an "A Ha!!" moment. But it certainly seems like a fair-minded attempt to explore pathways to potential resolution of the issue.


"The Creed states "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father."

To the Greeks this meant/means the HYPOSTASIS of the Holy Spirit is BY the Hypostasis of Father" - in other words, the doctrine of origination of Hypostasis. "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father" means "The HYPOSTASIS of the Holy Spirit originates (ekporeusai) from the Hypostasis of the Father."

To the Latins this meant/means the ESSENCE of the Holy Spirit is FROM the Essence of the Father (as numerous Latin sources explicitly state) - in other words, the doctrine of communication of Essence. Since the focus of the Latins was unity of Essence, it was natural and orthodox to say the Essence of the Holy is from the Essence of the Father and the Son. "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son" means "The ESSENCE of the Holy Spirit flows (procedit/proienai) from the Essence of Father and Son."

To the Greeks, on the other hand, since the focus was hypostasis - and in that context the term "from" was equivalent to "by" (this has nothing to do with the "through the Son" issue, in case anyone is wondering) in the sense of being the formal cause - comprehended the Latins to be saying "the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is BY the Essence of the Father." This led to the accusation and misconception, among other accusations and misconceptions, that the Latins were teaching that it is the Essence per se, not the Father personally, that generates and spirates.

I hope the above helps people comprehend how the different foci of hypostasis for the Greeks, on the one hand, and Essence for the Latins, on the other, has led to the historic division on the filioque doctrine. The different foci (hypostasis "versus" essence) can possibly explain why certain Eastern fathers comprehend the Greek expression "dia tou Uios" is a reference to an economic procession, for it seems conceptually impossible to conceive of HYPOSTASIS as "dia tou Uios" except in that sense. On the other hand, if applied to ESSENCE, the expression "dia tou Uios" makes sense in the immanent reality of the Godhead. Remember that Florence's dogma of communication of Essence does not state that "through the Son" means the Son is source of Essence. "Source" is a term that the Florentine decree applies ONLY to the Father.


Latin diarchists and EO polemicists BOTH are neglecting the entire history of the filioque debate by claiming that the Latin doctrine is about origination of hypostasis.

Historically, the Latins too share fault in the historic misunderstanding and schism since in the High Middle Ages, it was a popular belief among Latins that filioque was part of the original creed, and there were false accusations against the Greeks that they (1) removed it from the Creed and (2) thereby were denying the unity of Essence of Father and Son. The Popes evidently did not give ear to the first accusation against the Greeks, since even Florence admits that filioque was added by the Latins for a legitimate cause, not that the Greeks ever removed it. On the other hand, Florence suggests that the second accusation was common enough even on the Magisterial level by the words, "The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son."

But "exclude" the Son from what? The divine act of communicating Essence, or the divine act of originating Hypostasis? This latter statement, together with SEVERAL other crucial statements in the Decree, evince that the focus and dogma of Florence was about communication of Essence, NOT origination of hypostasis, for who would or could believe that the Greeks would ever admit that the Son is included in the origination of the Hypostasis of the Spirit?

That the focus of the Latin Tradition was (is) unity of Essence is amply evinced by the regular assertion from medieval Latin authorities that hypostasis is from the Essence of the Father (as noted, misunderstood by many Eastern authorities as teaching that it is the Essence, not the Father, that generates or spirates). The real question is whether there is ample evidence that the Greek fathers also explicitly believed that Essence of Holy Spirit flows from Father and Son (or from Father through Son). I personally believe that would lay the immoveable ground from which unity on the issue of Filioque can be achieved."

I thought the schism was over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread in the Lord's supper. You know, important stuff that should split churches.

I believe this is the dogmatic statement from the sixth session of Florence

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.


Here is an Orthodox critique of Florence.

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2019/12/07/the-council-of-florence-and-a-heretical-filioque/

I've never heard much of what was in the OP. Given the language in the OP, that seems like a very eastern response.

The more common western response is that the inclusion of the filioque into the creed was in response to Arianism (belief that Son was created or lesser than the Father). This was a heresy that was prevalent in the west and when the creed was looked at, the accusation was this was proof that the Father could do something that the Son couldn't and was therefore superior.

So the natural response was to close that loophole by adding the Son into that portion of the Creed. They couldn't have put generic "God" because saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from God would open up christians to the accusation that the Holy Spirit wasn't God.

Biblically, the language is there John 20: "21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."


However, the bigger issue is really one of politics. The west did screw up by not waiting for a council to formally discuss how to the creed should address the issue. The way my prof put it, it would be like California deciding it was going to rewrite the Constitution and then expecting everyone to just accept it. Couple this action with rise of Pope and we have a very bad situation.

All that being said, the better language is probably "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" and you land in a more palatable situation.

yeah, I'm pretty sure the statement in the OP however irenic doesn't really address the entire concept of "as from one principle". I don't see how you can square that circle. either the "one principle" is the essence, which seems to be clearly what Florence says, or the Spirit proceeds from both the hypostasis of the Father and of the Son.

the problem is that we don't know the essence of God, we know the hypostases. when Christ says, the Spirit "proceeds from the Father" we have to take that as what it says. If you say the Spirit "proceeds from the [essence of] the Father" you just wind up with a circle where the essence proceeds from itself, and i suppose begets itself, and fathers itself. it is confusing.

Genuine question: is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son actually different than the Holy Spirit proceeding THROUGH the Son? At first glance, it seems like through is just another version of from. I'm sure there's more to it than that, but I am hoping someone can expand on my limited understanding.

Thanks.

The difference is in causality.

This one is a little old, but Matt Fradd (Eastern Catholic at this point) interviewed an Eastern Catholic priest on the filioque. It's only 13 minutes but consider at least watching from 11:23 on. Essentially, if the shoe was on the other foot, if the Orthodox changed the creed of the Church on their own, would Catholics not call them out? Also, the filioque was added to the creed to combat Arianism; it's essentially gone, why not remove the filioque and take a gigantic step to reunification?

Zobel said:

---

The difference is in causality.

---

Thanks. The concept of "causality" has always struck me as odd when used in the context of God's eternality. What is causality if something has no beginning or end?

That is the question regarding the filioque. There is no difference in talking about procession and begetting; both speak of existence, both are talking about things outside of time. That's why revelation trumps logical or philosophical proofs here. St Gregory talks this in his second oration on theology - pry into it and we can go mad discussing it, and it is faith which completes our argument etc.

Here is a thorough handling of your question.
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.html

Also a good read
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/the-importance-of-the-monarchy-of-the-father-according-to-john-zizioulas/

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/catholic-orthodox-theologians-agree

"The Church is not properly understood as a pyramid, with a primate governing from the top, but neither is it properly understood as a federation of self-sufficient Churches," it says.
"Our historical study of synodality and primacy in the second millennium has shown the inadequacy of both of these views."
It concludes that "the interdependence of synodality and primacy is a fundamental principle in the life of the Church" and the principle "should be invoked to meet the needs and requirements of the Church in our time."