|
© Copyright - material in this site may not be reproduced in any media without the express permission of the Web Master. Care has been taken by this site to ensure that all necessary copyright permissions have been obtained. If this is not the case in any instance, this is an inadvertent error. Please contact the Web Master and this will be rectified. |
BELIEF
Salvation in the Orthodox Church / A Conversation on Salvation / Faith through the Year / Becoming Orthodox / The Profession of Faith / History of the Filioque / "Orthodox Hermeneutics" "How did we get our Bible?" / Web Articles Links Elsewhere on this Site Why I should consider the Orthodox Church Orthodox Christianity, Creationism and Evolution More Information about Orthodoxy
ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY FOR ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS
FR. GREGORY'S ORTHODOX CATECHISM Salvation in the Orthodox Church (1) Ancestral Sin and Salvation - (also, Genesis and Evolution) - what happened in Eden and how we are saved from death and sin? (2) Salvation History - How God has saved His People throughout history. (3) The Christ of Chalcedon - How Christ is King at a personal and Cosmic level. (4) The Death and Resurrection of Christ - What Pascha (Easter) means in the Church and for the World. (5) Salvation as a Process in Time - How God has saved us, is saving us and will save us. (6) The Aim of Salvation - Deification and the Christian life, grace and freedom. (7) The River of Fire by Alexandre Kalomiros - this famous and "must read" article clearly explains the difference between Orthodox and Catholic / Protestant understandings of salvation. (8) Heaven and Hell in the After Life according to the Bible by Peter Chopelas ... similar in scope to "The River of Fire" but less polemical in its view of the Christian west. (9) Orthodoxy and Creationism by Fr. Deacon Andrey Kuraev (10) Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy by Very. Revd.. Antony Hughes, M.Div., St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts
DOWNLOAD PDF FILE FOR NO. 10
ARTICLE
This is a question asked recently by an email correspondent (SS):- "I was looking through your site for your version of the significance of the death of Jesus. This is what I understand from the nonorthodox (is that the correct word) church: Man is guilty of the original sin. The redemption from this sin requires a sacrifice. However, it can't be any old sacrifice it has to be the sacrifice of a sinless soul, because Adam was sinless when he committed the original sin. This is where Jesus the sinless soul steps in. I learnt from someone that the Orthodox Church does not have the concept of man having the original sin. I was, and still am even after going through your website, puzled as to how there can be any need for the sacrifice of Jesus if there was no original sin? Could you shed some light on this in very simple layman terms please. SS " Here is my reply Dear SS A classic case is “original
sin.” Since this doctrine lies at the root of many of the differences
between us on salvation many Orthodox prefer to use a different term ....
“ancestral sin.” The trouble is that we can get ourselves tied up in
knots over language. It doesn’t really matter what we call it.
More importantly, what is “IT”? From Orthodox teaching,
ancestral sin is the legacy we receive from our first parents (represented
by Adam and Eve) which inclines our wills (through temptation) to sin.
Sin here is understood in the New Testament sense of “missing the mark” ...
an analogy from archery. Human beings were created for union with God.
That is the bull’s eye. Anything less than that is “sin.”
“Falling short” is the sin that leads us into sins, (an important
distinction). So far there is no difference
between Orthodoxy and the rest. Now the difference. What is “IT” that inclines our wills (through temptation)
to sin? The answer of the non-Orthodox is usually (with different
emphases) a corruption in our nature brought on by disobedience and the
devil’s influence with expulsion from the garden of Eden as punishment.
Classically in the west this has also been understood as transmitted by
sexual reproduction both in respect of the sinning of Adam and Eve AND the
guilt of their sin which we share. This then leads the west to
understand the death of Christ as a SUBSTITUTIONARY punishment of Christ for
our sin ... substitutionary so that we can be released from God’s wrath at
sin. Forgiveness in this case is more or less equivalent to:- “I will
not punish you because I have punished my Son instead.” Catholicism and Protestantism only differ in one important
matter here ... the significance of the (alleged) corruption in our nature.
Augustine talked of humanity under condemnation as a “massa damnata” (a
damnable lump). Calvin talked over total depravity and thereby pushed
Protestantism towards a sort of extreme Augustinianism where human will was
totally disabled and only God’s action could be effective in salvation
terms. Catholicism never went that far and insisted that our wills had
a role to play, grace perfecting our nature, not destroying it, (and many
Protestants recoiled as well especially in the Anglican and Methodist
traditions), but the basic idea remained the same for all that ... the death
of Christ was a punishment ... a satisfaction of God’s wrath and just
requirements from us concerning sin, its effects and penalties. Now from an Orthodox point of
view this is seriously deficient (putting it mildly!) .... many or even most
would say, downright heretical! Here are our objections:-
(1)
It
makes God into a monster ... he creates us knowing we will fail, he punishes
us knowing the inevitability of our sin, he relents and quite irrationally
punishes Jesus in our place, there is no innate human goodness, we are all
going to hell unless we repent ... a place where the punishment and
suffering will be never ending. Many have questioned whether this can
be the God of Love at all but rather some alien invasion of Christianity by
something atrocious and hateful.
(2)
It absolves human
beings from responsibility for their sin. If all the corruption is
received from Adam and Eve and there is nothing we can do that has any value
in salvation terms then we are merely flawed chess pieces that God moves
around his chess table. No matter how cleverly Calvinists try and
qualify their language this is the plain and monstrous implication of double
predestination. This evil “god” sets things up so that some will be
saved and some will be damned and this has nothing to do with the persons
concerned at all. All these can do is surrender to God’s inscrutable
providence, (a bit like Islam in some respects that!)
(3)
It redefines the
rich Old Testament of practice and theology sacrifice as merely
“punishment.” It would take too long here to explain how this has
distorted the notion of sacrifice but any objective survey of the biblical
understanding of sacrifice will show just how selective and misleading this
emphasis is and has become.
(4)
It isolates the
death of Christ from almost everything else which merely becomes a “walk on
part” in the drama. So, the Incarnation and the Virgin Mary have no
significance other than this is the means by which we get Jesus. The
resurrection is simply the end term prize for what has already been achieved
in its fullness on the cross. The ascension becomes inexplicable and
the Trinity a theoretical abstraction.. By contrast the Orthodox Church
continues to teach what the Church of the first Millennium taught (before
Anselm, the Scholastics and the Reformers took over in the west). The sacrifice of Christ is the offering of God TO US and
for the COSMOS. It is the outpouring of his Love made possible by the
Incarnation and in all the intimacy with us that assuming our human nature
and flesh means. He steps into the breach of our alienation from Him
and forgives us. He steps into the breach of death and destroys it in
and by his resurrection. His life with us (his earthly ministry AND the
Pentecostal gift of the Spirit) becomes the possibility of our life now if
we will repent. This life brings us union with Him ... our intended
created state ... a transition from “glory to glory” ... deification (theosis). Moreover his death destroying
resurrection has ALSO dealt with sin as it is the corrupting influence of
the awareness of death and our inability to fulfil the Law because of that
which is our legacy inherited from Adam and Eve ... that is, transmitted by
death, not sex. God expelled us from Eden not as a punishment but to
protect us from eternal death which would have happened if we had gone on to
eat from the Tree of Life (immortality). However, death itself had to
be destroyed if we were to enter Eden again. Sin indeed leads to death
but death and the awareness of death also leads to sin. The
resurrection (and all else) saves us just as surely as the cross does
because it is GOD-WITH-US who saves us and that entirely as the Incarnate
Son and the Life Giving Spirit from the Father.
I am very grateful to you for your detailed answer. It has shed some light into the differences between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox views. I like to compare religious beliefs but I haven't ventured beyond the Abrahamic faiths and I only skim the surface. I look into how the OT, the NT and the HQ (Holy Qur'an) deal with various issues like: Monotheism, The Original Sin Nature of Jesus The mission of Jesus The teachings of Jesus The fate of Jesus The position of Mohammed I see from your answer that the Orthodox view on the mercy of God, according to my understanding so far, is a little closer to that of the HQ than the non-Orthodox view. I am happy for you to publish my question alongside your answer as requested. However, may I suggest that, out of fairness to all, any comparison to Islam should be accompanied by quoting relevant references from the HQ as many readers may not be familiar with Islam. From my studies I know that salvation, according to HQ 103:3, is not a fait accompli by divine decree but is open to all those who 1 have correct Faith, 2 do righteous deeds, 3 exhort one another to justice and truth, and 4 exhort one another to patient perseverance. Thank you once again for sharing your expert knowledge
During 2005, there will be a series of talks, usually on the first Saturday on the Month at the Liturgy at St. Aidan's, (schedule), tracing Orthodox Faith and Life through the Christian Year and Calendar. Please return here monthly to read these talks.
Becoming OrthodoxThis section tells you what Orthodox believe in terms of the PROFESSION OF FAITH authorised for use in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. This Profession of Faith forms the basis of instruction for those seeking BAPTISM or CHRISMATION into the Holy Orthodox Church. Before you read the Profession of Faith you may care to understand the process whereby someone becomes Orthodox.
The Profession of Faithconsisting of the Nicene Creed ..."I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God; Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, very God of very God: begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven: And was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man: And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate: He suffered and was buried: And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures: And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father: And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the Prophets: And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the resurrection from the dead: And the life of the world to come. Amen. with elucidations from the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils ... I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; For He is without beginning, unbegotten and without cause, but is himself the natural cause and beginning of the Son and of the Spirit. And I believe in his Only-Begotten Son, without mutation and without time begotten of Him, being of one essence with Him by whom all things were made. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the (same) Father, and with Him is glorified as coeternal, being of one essence with Him and equal in glory, and enthroned together with Him, the Author of creation. I believe that one of the same super-substantial and life-giving Trinity, the Only-Begotten Word, came down from heaven, for us men, and for our salvation, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; that is to say, was made perfect man, yet remaining God, and in no wise changing his divine essence by his participation in the flesh, neither being transmuted into anything else; but without mutation, assuming man's nature, he therein endured suffering and death, being free in His divine nature from every suffering. And on the third day he rose again (from the dead) ... ; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of (His God) the Father. And I believe those traditions and narrations concerning the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which we have received from God and the men of God. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection from the dead, and the life of the world to come. Furthermore I confess the one Person, the Word made flesh; and I believe and proclaim that Christ is one and the same in two natures after his incarnation, preserving those things which were in them and from them. Therefore, also, I adore two wills, in that each retains its own special will and its own action. I reverence, relatively, but not in the way of worship the images divine and reverence-worthy of Christ Himself, and of the all-undefiled Mother of God, and of all the Saints, addressing to their originals the honour shown to them. I reject as ill-advised those who think otherwise. And I literally and truly confess our Sovereign Lady, Mary the Birth-Giver of God, as having borne in the flesh one of the Trinity even Christ our God. And may the same be my helper, protector and defender all the days of my life. I accept and confess the Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Canons, established by the Seven Holy Ecumenical and Provincial Councils, and the traditions of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church, its rules and ordinances; and likewise I will, accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Church, our Mother, hath held and doth hold. I believe and confess that there are seven sacraments of the New Testament, namely:- Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist, Confession, the Priesthood, Marriage and Anointing with Oil, instituted by the Lord Christ and His Church, to the end that through their operation and reception, we may receive blessings from on high. I believe and confess that in the Divine Liturgy, under the mystical forms of bread and wine, the faithful partake of the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto the remission of their sins, and unto life eternal. I believe and confess that it is proper to reverence and invoke the Saints who reign on high with Christ, according to the interpretation of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Church; and that their prayers and intercessions avail with the beneficent God unto our salvation: Likewise that it is well-pleasing in the sight of God that we should do homage to their relics, glorified through incorruption, as the precious memorials of their virtues. I acknowledge that the images of our Saviour Christ, and of the Ever-Virgin Mother of God, and of the other Saints are worthy to be possessed and honoured; not unto idolatry, but that, through contemplation thereof we may be incited unto piety, and unto emulation of the deeds of the holy persons represented by those images. I confess that the prayers of the faithful, which are offered up to God for the salvation of those who have departed this life in the faith, are favourably received, through the mercy of God. I believe and confess that power has been given by our Saviour Christ unto the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Church to bind and to loose: and whatsoever, by virtue of that power, is bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. I believe and confess that the Foundation, Head and Great High Priest and Chief Shepherd of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Church is our Lord Jesus Christ: and that Bishops, Pastors and Teachers are appointed by Him to rule the Church, and that the Guide and Pilot of this Church is the Holy Spirit. I confess that this Church is the Bride of Christ, and that therein is true salvation. I understand that rite follows place not person. Orthodox Christians will conform to the Rite and practices of the parish they are attending. I promise true obedience, unto my life's end, to the Metropolitan / Bishop of this Archdiocese / Diocese and his lawful successors in office as the true Pastors of the Orthodox Church, and to the Priests appointed by them." History of the FilioqueThis following excellent article is by Thomas Ross Valentine
The First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in A.D. 325, was concerned with defending the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ against the heresy of the Arians. As such, the Symbol of Faith formulated by its fathers said little about the Church's belief about the Holy Spirit. It stated:
The Second Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in A.D. 381 (also known as the first Council of Constantinople) was again concerned with defending the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was also concerned with defending the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. For that reason, it expanded the Symbol of Faith formulated by the previous Ecumenical Council in the section pertaining to the Church's belief regarding the Holy Spirit. This section then read:
In A.D. 587, the local council of Toledo (Spain) added Filioque to the Creed in an attempt to combat Arianism. (The Latin word Filioque is translated into English as 'and the Son' and changes the Symbol of Faith to
This addition was intended to emphasise the consubstantiality of the Father and Son against the Arian heresy. From Spain, the Filioque spread to the Germanic tribe of the Franks (in present-day France). It was embraced by Charlemagne who went so far as to accuse the East of having deliberately omitted it from the ancient Creed. Pope Leo III (795-816) intervened, and forbade any interpolations or alterations in the Nicene Creed. He ordered the Creed, without Filioque, to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates on the wall of St. Peter's in Rome. Nevertheless, the addition was maintained by the Franks. The dispute grew (many historians think Charlemagne used the Filioque in an attempt to justify his claim to be emperor against the Emperor of the Roman Empire located in Constantinople) between East and West and was the focus of the council of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880. This council (recognised as the Eighth Ecumenical Council by Orthodox Christians) reaffirmed the creed of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This council's teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I. Still, the Filioque continued to be used by the Franks and spread to other Germanic tribes. The Filioque was first used in Rome at the coronation of Henry II in 1014 as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Historians see this as a passive acceptance by the pope (Benedict VIII) due to his dependence on the Holy Roman Empire for military protection. From that time, Roman Catholics began adding the Filioque to the creed and have continued doing so.
Criticism of the Filioque Objection 1:The addition is neither from nor consistent with the Sacred Scriptures The original phrase of the Symbol of Faith: 'We believe ... in the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father' is directly from John 15:26:
Examining the key words, we find
Thus, the most important word of the passage, ekporeuetai ('proceeds') refers to the Holy Spirit's point of origin. Since that origin is 'from all eternity' (i.e. outside of time, before time began), it refers to the Holy Spirit's eternal origin and not to His temporal mission (His being sent into the world in time). Even recent statements from the Vatican recognise this understanding:
Put in simpler terms, if I give a Rawlings baseball glove to my son he may tell others he received the glove from me, but the glove's ultimate origin is Rawlings. Similarly, we can say we receive the Holy Spirit from the Son (because the Son sent Him), but the Holy Spirit's ultimate origin is the Father. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son cannot be found in Sacred Scripture. It is a man-made addition. However, recent Vatican statements notwithstanding, because Roman Catholicism has altered the ancient Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Faith and now teaches that the Holy Spirit's eternal procession is from both the Father and the Son, it is commonplace for Roman Catholic translations of the Bible to distort the plain meaning. Here's how two Roman Catholic translations handle the passage (John 15:26).
There is nothing wrong with the New Jerusalem Bible's translation. The use of 'issues from' instead of 'proceeds' is a fine translation of ekporeuetai, but by footnoting 'issues from' and stating that this does not refer to the Holy Spirit's eternal procession (His ultimate origin from all eternity) but only to the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world (in time), it simply denies the truth. The New American Bible (deliberately?) distorts the passage using the verb 'comes' in place of the far more accurate (and traditional) 'proceeds'. This mistranslation obscures the clear meaning of the Greek text. Its comment is essentially the same as the New Jerusalem translation: a denial of the clear meaning in favour of the Roman Catholic error. The reference to John 14:26 is a red herring. No one denies that the Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son into the world. These Roman Catholic translations would have one believe that there is nothing in Scripture that explicitly reveals the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. The Filioque contradicts the clear and explicit teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ as found in the Holy Gospel. Objection 2: Following the teaching of Plotinus (known as Neoplatonism), Augustine equated deity with the essential simplicity of the Neoplatonic 'One':
Following the Neoplatonic teaching that being, will, and activity of the "One" were wholly indistinguishable, Augustine taught that the term 'God' did not mean directly the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but the more general notion of the godhead, not as any one Person in particular. Augustine so confused Person and essence that he went so far as to refer to 'the Person of that Trinity'. [On the Trinity, 2.10.8] By starting with this philosophical assumption of essential simplicity and that this simplicity cannot and does not generate Divine Persons in more than one way (because to believe that He could generate Divine Persons in more than one way would mean God had parts, one part to beget and another to give procession), a 'problem' is found: the Son and the Holy Spirit, if both generated from the same source of Absolute Simplicity are indistinguishable. Unfortunately, this ignores the warning of two great saints:
The contrived 'problem' is 'solved' by making the Holy Spirit proceed from both the Father and the Son, thus making the Holy Spirit's origin ontologically different from that of the Son. The emphasis on simplicity reduces the identity of the three Divine Persons to relative terms to each other. As Augustine wrote:
Like the Arians who denied the full deity of Christ because He did not cause the Father (like other Neoplatonists confusing being, will, and activity), Augustine argued for the Son's divinity because He was the cause of another Divine Person (the Holy Spirit):
Thus, there is a subordination of Persons to attributes, and attributes to the divine essence (which is equivalent to the Neoplatonic 'One'). Augustine doesn't seem to shy away from explicitly confusing the Persons with attributes:
This confusion is also manifested in Augustine's infamous definition of the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son:
Augustine identifies deity with causality and regards causality to be the defining attribute of Divinity. Thus the Father causes the Son (the second fully Divine Person) who in turn has His Divinity affirmed by being the cause, along with the Father, of a third Divine Person: the Holy Spirit. This follows exactly the Plotinian model of 'One' which causes 'Nous' and the two together cause the 'world soul' (which, incidentally, is the same structure of thought which supports the errors and heresies of Origen). This Plotinian model is the Neoplatonic idea of a 'plurality of spheres of being, arranged in hierarchical descending order ... each sphere of being is derived from its superior, a derivation that is not a process in time or space'. [Encyclopaedia Britannica] Logic shows this reasoning is flawed. If the love between Father and Son establishes another Divine Person, there is no reason to stop there. The love between the Father and the Holy Spirit can be a fourth Divine Person; the love between the Son and the Holy Spirit can be a fifth Divine Person; the love between the Father and the fourth Person can be a sixth Divine Person; etc. etc. ad infinitum. Augustine chose to stop with the Son causing the Holy Spirit and was unwilling to posit the Holy Spirit being the cause of a fourth Divine Person because Divine Revelation teaches that there are only three Divine Persons. Unfortunately, he failed to start with Divine Revelation which teaches us that each of the Divine Persons are unique and follow the advice of St Gregory the Theologian and Saint John of Damascus given above. As a result Augustine's hierarchical arrangement certainly suggests that the Holy Spirit is not Divine inasmuch as He is not a source of causality. By beginning from a pagan philosophical presupposition of 'divine simplicity' instead of Divine Revelation, from whence we know there are three Divine Persons in one Godhead, the West has so confused the Divine Persons that their distinction becomes unimportant. Thus, when faced with the following question:
Roman Catholics do not know how to respond. For those who recognise three distinct Persons Who have been revealed to us, it is clear that if the ability to 'spirate' is attributed to the Godhead, then there are two options:
The first is a denial of the Holy Trinity; the second a ridiculous absurdity. The entire teaching is based on a feeble attempt to employ human wisdom to explain that which is unexplainable. It is convoluted, confused, and rooted in a man-conceived god (as of the Neoplatonists) rather than the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, the God of Jesus Christ. From the Orthodox perspective the only acceptable attitude towards God is one of humble awe and submission. We humbly and gratefully accept that which He reveals to us. We recognise that our feeble minds are utterly incapable of understanding God as He is. We recognise that our human conceptions of justice, mercy, and everything else — even love itself — falls infinitely short of the Truth. God is 'beyond all intellection', or as Saint John of Damascus wrote:
Objection 3: Pagan Greek ontology taught that God is first and foremost, His substance or nature. Heretics such as the Arians and Nestorians, working from this pagan Greek thought, taught that the substance or nature preceded God's existence as Trinity, i.e. as Three Persons. This is the same interpretation that has come to prevail in Western Christian thought as can be seen by the typical arrangement of books on dogmatic and systematic theologies. (First is the existence of God, then the nature of God, then the attributes or qualities of God; all before the existence of the Trinity is broached.) This interpretation is important inasmuch as it assumes a priori that the ontological 'principle' of God lies not in a Person, but in the substance, the 'being' of God. In the West, this has led to the belief that the unity of God consists of the one divine substance. This is a distortion of Patristic theology. Among the Fathers the unity of God, the 'cause' of the being and life of God consists not in the one substance of God, but in the Person of the Father (His hypostasis). The one God is not the one substance, but the Father who begets the Son and 'spirates' the Holy Spirit. Thus, God is not bound by some ontological 'necessity' to exist. God exists because the Father exists, He who out of love freely and eternally begets the Son and freely and eternally 'spirates' the Holy Spirit. Substance or nature does not exist in a vacuum, without a mode of existence (i.e. a hypostasis or person). The one divine substance/nature is the being of God only because it has three modes of existence — Three Persons — which it owes not to the substance, but to the source ( arch) of the Three: the Father. Apart from the Holy Trinity there is no God, no divine substance because the ontological 'principle' of God is the Father. By regarding some Divine substance as the source of the Holy Trinity, the existence of the Three Divine Persons is made a kind of logical necessity, thus undermining the autonomy of the Holy Trinity. In the Filioque, this emphasis on likeness of Divine substance between the Father and the Son results in the subordination of the Holy Spirit. Objection 4: There are plenty of Roman Catholic teachings which explicitly teach a double procession. Here are some of the more important (emphases added in bold, red italics, all other emphases in originals).
As can be seen from the above examples, there have been attempts to 'nuance' the older teaching with statements such as 'the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son as from one principle'. The problem with the Father and Son as 'one principle' is that the Holy Spirit, Who obviously is excluded from that principle, ends up being subordinated — the fundamental problem with the Filioque. Unfortunately, because of Roman Catholicism's understanding of its 'teaching authority' (magisterium) in conjunction with the belief in Roman Catholicism's infallibility, they are unable to repudiate earlier statements, even after recognising them to be in error. The above referenced article from L'Osservatore Romano is typical of these recent attempts to distance themselves from the older, explicit teachings of a double procession. The article is easily summarised: although the Greek word ekporeusiV which in Latin is rendered procedit 'can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle' [first page of article], procedit can refer to either an ultimate origin or an intermediary origin. In effect, the Vatican document claims that the Latin rendering of the Symbol of Faith is really the equivalent of:
The problem with such an interpretation should be obvious. First, it is a clear change from the original meaning. Even for those who might not understand that ekporeusiV can only refer to ultimate origin (and, since the Holy Spirit is eternal, must refer to His eternal origin), it should be clear that this disrupts the parallel with the Symbol's explication of the Son's origin ('one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, eternally begotten of the Father'). The Symbol declares what we believe regarding the ultimate origin of the Son. Does it not make logical sense that it would also declare what we believe regarding the ultimate origin of the Holy Spirit instead of the sending of Him into the world at a specific moment in time? The addition of the Filioque was a violation of the ancient principle established by Saint Vincent of Lerins (? - ante A.D. 450):
The Filioque certainly was not and is not something believed 'everywhere, always, and by all'. The Roman Catholic Church, by adopting something not 'truly and properly Catholic' forfeited its claim to be 'Catholic'. Objection 5: Even Roman Catholic historians and theologians now admit that the addition of the Filioque was done arbitrarily, without consulting the East. The Filioque expressed a novel belief which was not a part of that which had been believed 'everywhere, always, and by all'. As Alexei Khomiakov wrote in The Church Is One:
If the True Faith were not preserved in the West where love had grown weak (as evidenced by the arrogance of Rome in arrogating to itself all authority within the Church) then one should expect that innovations that developed in this realm where the True Faith were no longer preserved will be inconsistent with the truth. Sadly, this is the case with the Filioque. Responses to Arguments in Support of the Filioque In this section, we will examine the usual arguments presented by supporters of the Filioque. The first part of the section will be an examination of the 'logical' arguments. The second part will look at excerpts taken from Patristic writings that apologists for the Filioque present as proof-texts. Not surprisingly, Augustine and other Western writers are the most frequently cited Patristic sources. But since we have already demonstrated that Augustine is unreliable as an orthodox source of theology of the Holy Trinity, we will not examine his texts in this section. Neither will we examine the texts of those writers who followed in Augustine's footsteps. Rather, we will limit our examination to Eastern writers since apologists for the Filioque think these should be more impressive to Orthodox Christians. Three warnings about Patristic citations should be noted:
Before proceeding, it should be noted that one frequently finds in the writings of the Eastern Fathers the formula 'the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son'. This formula is deemed perfectly orthodox by Orthodox Christians. It testifies to the fact that none of the Divine Persons acts apart from the others; they share the one Divine Will. A common analogy is that as a man, when vocalising a word exudes breath, so the Father, when speaking (begetting) the Word exudes (spirates) the Holy Spirit (the Greek word for 'breath' (pneuma also means 'spirit'). This analogy demonstrates both the distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit and their inseparableness. It also demonstrates that the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the Father and not the Father's creations. When the Fathers testify that the Holy Spirit is the 'Spirit of God' as well as the 'Spirit of Christ', they mean that the Holy Spirit has His eternal and existential origin in the Father whilst being inseparably one with the Son with whom He (the Holy Spirit) is naturally united and of the same essence. In other words, the Holy Spirit has His 'perfect procession' (the phrase is from Saint Cyril of Alexandria) from the Father and is joined to the Son in unity by reason of their shared essence (their consubstantiality). It is the consubstantiality of the Three Divine Persons that is being expressed or, as Saint Maximus the Confessor phrases it: 'the unity and unchangeableness of the Divine Essence'. Apologists for the Filioque frequently assert that 'proceeds from the Father and the Son' is equivalent to 'proceeds from the Father through the Son'. Although 'and' and 'through' may sometimes by synonymous in English (the paperwork must go through the boss usually means that the boss needs to add something such as a signature and thus constitutes an addition, an 'and'), in Greek 'through' (dia) and 'and' (kai) are never synonymous. 'Through' (dia) never means a contributory effect; it means a 'tunnelling' or 'channelling', whereas 'and' (kai) usually means a 'copulative' (i.e. a joining together which expresses an addition) and sometimes also a cumulative effect (i.e. an addition which implies an insufficiency on the part of the elements separately). In sum, dia always excludes addition; kai always means addition. The words are mutually exclusive.
ARGUMENT: Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father [John 15:26, Acts 2:33], He internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the 'Spirit of the Son' [Gal. 4:6] and not just the Spirit of the Father. RESPONSE: The phrase 'Spirit of the Son' [Gal 4:6], 'Spirit of Christ' [Rom 8:9 and 1 Pet 1:11], and 'Spirit of Jesus Christ' [Phil 1:19] do not speak of origin, let alone existential origin as does John 15:26. All beings have 'spirits'. The Spirit of the Son, He Who is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, must be the Holy Spirit lest we separate the Son and the Holy Spirit. This does not, however, mean that the Son is the existential origin of the Holy Spirit. As explained above, if I give a Rawlings baseball glove to my son he may tell others he received the glove from me, but the glove's ultimate origin is Rawlings. Similarly, we can say we receive the Holy Spirit from the Son (because the Son sent Him), but the Holy Spirit's ultimate origin is the Father. Possession is not the same as existential origin.
ARGUMENT: All things that the Father has belong to the Son [Jn 16:15], and thus the Father's ability to 'proceed' the Holy Spirit is given to the Son. RESPONSE: Those who use this argument must admit that this cannot mean all things since the Father cannot give His Fatherhood to the Son (which would be an absurdity!), but because they make a Divine substance the source of the Holy Trinity, they fail to understand the nature of the Fatherhood — that which makes the Father the source (arch) of the Son and Holy Spirit.
ARGUMENT: That the Holy Spirit is from the Son can be seen in Jn 20:22: 'And having said this He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."' RESPONSE: It is incorrect to argue that because the Holy Spirit is conveyed to the Apostles by the breath of the Son that the Holy Spirit's eternal and existential origin is the Son. To argue in this way is to demonstrate ignorance of the difference between the Holy Spirit's Eternal Origin and His temporal coming into the world. The Holy Spirit was not 'spirated' for the first time in the Upper Room, but exists eternally. Once this distinction is recognised it becomes clear that this passage speaks of the Holy Spirit's coming into the world (His temporal origin) and does not refer to His eternal, existential origin. This verse does, however, testify to the formula 'the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son' because the Holy Spirit comes to us through the Lord Jesus Christ.
ARGUMENT: It oversimplifies to say that the Son does not impart existence to others. John 1:3 states: 'All things through Him came to be, and without Him came to be nothing which has come to be.' This is reaffirmed in the Nicene Creed itself which makes clear that the creation is the work of both Father and Son. Indeed, Christians both East and West acknowledge that all three persons of the Trinity are involved in the work of creation (see Genesis 1:1-3). RESPONSE: This argument has been included because, as incredible as it may seem, it is frequently found in arguments presented in support of the Filioque. For example, in correspondence received from Roman Catholics arguing for the Filioque (self-described as 'traditionalist and/or conservative'), I have been informed:
and
and
and
This argument is incredible because John 1:3 (as well as the application of that which is the Nicene Creed) teaches that 'through the Son' all creation was created. The Holy Spirit is not a creation, He is eternally God. Any person who teaches that the Holy Spirit is included in those things which 'came to be' as referred to in John 1:3 cannot be regarded as a Christian. Such an argument is in the same category as the claim from the Jehovah's Witnesses that the Son is created as 'a god'.
ARGUMENT: If the dual procession be denied, it is not clear how we are to distinguish between the Word and the Spirit, between the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity. We distinguish between the Father and the Son, even though they are co-eternal and co-equal, and omni-perfect, by virtue of the fact that the One begets and the other is begotten — that is, the being of One is derived from the being of the Other. But if we say that the Son is derived from the Father alone, and that the Spirit is derived from the Father alone, how are the Son and the Spirit different? We may indeed say that it is the Second Person, not the First or the Third, that was made flesh for our salvation in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth. But this does not answer the question at hand, for the distinction of the Divine Persons must lie in the nature of the Godhead, not in the relation of God to a universe which He need not have created. RESPONSE: This argument was taken, verbatim, from a supporter of the Filioque. It is, of course, the problem explained in Objection #2 above, that human 'wisdom' (philosophy) is given precedence over Divine Revelation. Rather than restating all the problems with this argument, let us simply recall the statement of Saint John of Damascus:
ARGUMENT: The first distinctive statement about the Holy Spirit that we find in the Creed is that He is the Life-giver. Now, what does it mean to give life? What is the difference between a dead cat and a live one? A dead body may have all the parts that a live one has, but in a live body the parts are interacting, each part carrying out its distinctive function for the good of the whole body. The life of an organism, the spirit of an organism, is the 'glue' that unites the parts into an integrated whole. So, in the Church, it is the Spirit that gives to each member a function to be carried out for the enhanced life of the whole Body of Christ, and gives the gifts necessary for carrying out that function. Not all members receive the same gifts; but, as the Apostle Paul points out to the Corinthians, the one gift available to every member is also the one gift most to be desired, and that is the gift of love, by which the whole body is joined together, all the members being united in love with Christ and with one another. Thus, if anyone asks what is the special activity of the Holy Spirit, we must answer that it is to unite in love. And if it is of the nature of the Spirit to unite things, then we may be sure that He has been carrying out this activity for all eternity. Before there was a Church, before there was physical life of any kind, the Spirit was the bond of love and unity between the Father and the Son. From all eternity, independently of any created being, God is the Lover, the Loved, and the Love itself. And the bond of unity and love that exists between the Father and the Son proceeds from the Father and the Son. RESPONSE: This argument was also taken from a supporter of the Filioque. The error of subordinating the Holy Spirit to a bond of love between the Father and the Son has already been addressed. There is a second error in the above argument: equating the Holy Spirit to a member of the Church. The Holy Spirit is God, not a member of the Church. There is also a third, subtler error in this argument: the idea that life is dependent upon role/purpose. First, the Holy Spirit, being God, is not dependent upon anything for His existence. Second, the gift of life we humans have from the Giver of Life (the Holy Spirit along with the Father and the Son) is a free gift. We live the roles of our life because we first exist. It is not necessary for us to engage in some role in order for us to exist.
ARGUMENT: A creator (e.g. a writer, sculptor, musician, architect, etc.) first conceives of an idea before he is able to give it expression (e.g. a word, statue, composition, building, etc.). The expression does not create the idea; the idea creates the expression. Thus it is that 'No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father, except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.' [Matt 11:27] Thus theologians say that the Father is aware of Himself only by contemplating His image in the Son. And, just as in any creative act on the part of a human creator, the appreciative and understanding response proceeds not simply from the creative idea but from the creative idea revealed in the creative expression of that idea, so on the level of the Divine Creator, the Holy Spirit proceeds not solely from the Father but from the Father and the Son. RESPONSE: The first part of this argument is fine. Clearly, idea precedes expression. But one needs to be careful about applying human concepts about human beings to the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity. As soon as one expresses a limitation of any of the Divine Persons (e.g. 'the Father is aware of Himself only ...') alarms should go off in the mind of any right-thinking Christian. This idea seems more dependent upon human 'wisdom' (philosophy) than upon Divine Revelation. It seems to deny the Father's self-awareness. But if even human creatures possess self-awareness, then to deny this to the Father is a gross blasphemy. Furthermore, it is unclear how the creative process of human beings can apply to the Son or the Holy Spirit Who are not creatures. QUOTATIONS Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 4:1
This is the typical Eastern formula 'through the Son' discussed above. It should be noted that whenever Tertullian is cited, one must examine from which of the three periods of his life the citation is taken: his Orthodox period, his semi-Montanist (a heresy) period, or his Montanist period. His Against Praxeas is from Tertullian's Montanist period. Since Tertullian died a heretic, he is not deemed a Father of the Church.
Origen, Commentaries on John, 2:6
Like Tertullian, Origen was judged by the Church to be a heretic and is not deemed a Father of the Church. The above is clearly heretical, reducing the Holy Spirit to being the first of creation, i.e. a creature. On the contrary, the Holy Spirit is uncreated God.
Saint Maximus the Confessor, Questions to Thalassium, 63
This is the typical Eastern formula, 'through the Son'.
Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, Confession of Faith
'... manifested through the Son' means that it is through the Son that the Holy Spirit is presented to men. This has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit's eternal origin. It refers to His temporal origin as is described in John 20:22.
Didymus The Blind, The Holy Spirit, 37
Didymus the Blind followed Origen in much of his teachings regarding creation. Like Origen, his writings were condemned as heretical. For this reason, he is not a Father and is not regarded as a reliable source for doctrine. This passage appears to be Neoplatonic inasmuch as it appears to echo Augustine's identification of causality as the defining attribute of Divinity. The above presents the Father as the cause of the Son and the Son as the cause of the Holy Spirit, i.e. a plurality of spheres of being, arranged in hierarchical descending order, each sphere of being derived from its superior. If this is an accurate understanding of the above, the passage should be rejected as heretical.
Saint Athanasius, To Serapion of Thmius
We have previously addressed the passage of John 16:15. 'Announcing' obviously is not the equivalent of existential origin. We have also previously addressed the passage of Gal 4:6 and similar passages that speak of the 'Spirit of the Son'.
Saint Epiphanius of Salamis, The Well-Anchored Man, 8, 75
Epiphanius of Salamis is regarded as an Orthodox saint primarily for his work as a pastor of his flock. Most of the above passage addresses the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The only phrase that may bear on the Filioque is 'the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son'. It would be helpful to study the original language. Since ekporeusiV is conventionally translated as 'proceeds' whereas this passage employs 'breathes', it seems unlikely that ekporeusiV is used. That the Holy Spirit is 'breathed' forth from the Son (see John 20:22) refers to the Holy Spirit's temporal mission into the world, not His eternal origin.
Saint Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion (Breadbox), 62:4
Like the previous passage from the same saint, the thrust of this passage is the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity. Saint Epiphanius does not assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son — only the Father is presented as the source of the Holy Spirit's procession, i.e. the eternal and existential source of the Holy Spirit. Rather, Saint Epiphanius states that the Holy Spirit 'receives' from the Son. Though this passage does not explain what it is that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son, Orthodox teaching is that the Holy Spirit is eternally manifested by the Son. Since it would be proper, therefore, to state that the Holy Spirit receives His eternal manifestation from the Son, there is nothing in this passage to which Orthodox Christians would object.
Saint Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 18:45
This is the typical Eastern formula, 'through the Son'. It ought to be noted that the purpose of Saint Basil the Great's On the Holy Spirit was to demonstrate against the Pneumatomachoi (literally 'Spirit fighters') that the Holy Spirit was a Divine Person within the Holy Trinity. The Pneumatomachoi were anathematised at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381.
Saint Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 18:47
Again, this is the typical Eastern formula, 'through the Son'.
Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 1
Again, this is the typical Eastern formula, 'through the Son'.
Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Letter to Ablabius
Again, this is the typical Eastern formula, 'through the Son', albeit much more wordy.
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, thesis 34
At first appearance this passage seems to support the Filioque. However, Saint Cyril also taught that the Holy Spirit had His 'perfect procession' from the Father. The writings of Saint Cyril were thoroughly discussed during the Filioque controversy that erupted during the patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyrus (1283-1289). The Council of Blachernae (1285) concluded that Saint Cyril was addressing the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity rather than the eternal and existential origin of the Holy Spirit. Interestingly, this same Saint Cyril of Alexandria's interpretation of John 21 is often used against Roman Catholic claims that Saint Peter was made leader over the Apostles. The usual response by Roman Catholics is that the 'solitary phrase of Saint Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority' which stands against him. Of course, the same could be said if indeed this solitary phrase of Saint Cyril supports the Filioque. It would be necessary to examine the original language to be certain.
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Letters, 3:4:33
Again, this is the typical Eastern formula, 'through the Son'.
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, The Twelve Anathemas, Error 9
This passage addresses the consubstantiality of the Three Divine Persons.
Saint John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 8
Again, this is the typical Eastern formula, 'through the Son'.
Saint John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 12
Again, this is the typical Eastern formula, 'through the Son'.
Saint John of Damascus, Dialogue Against the Manicheans, 5
Again, this is the typical Eastern formula, 'through the Son'. To conclude this section and the essay, let us look at this explanation by Saint Gregory Palamas (from his Confession). It is one of the most succinct and precise expressions of the Holy Spirit's relation to the Father and Son in all of Patristic writings.
If you would like to re-produce this article, please give proper credit to the author. If you would like to put this on a web site, please retain the HTML code as is and send a link via e-mail to Thomas Ross Valentine. Comments are encouraged. Here are a couple of other comments on the filioque: On the Question of the Filioque link to Lecture by Fr. Gregory
|
