The Filioque Debates: Thoughts of a Bystander
June 27, 2008
It is absolutely necessary for me to begin this piece by openly acknowledging my ignorance about the issue of the filioque. Let me say it again: I know next to nothing about its theological nuances, Augustinian origins, monopatrism, how St. Maximos the Confessor understood procedere or what John Bekkos and Photios the Great had to say about how St. Maximos understood it. Readers who are interested in such matters can hop over to Eirenikon’s prodigiously-titled “Filioquextravaganza“, or enlighten themselves with Dr. Peter Gilbert’s erudite but lucid and fascinating essays on St. Maximos and the filioque and Anastasius the Librarian (from which I have profited greatly). This post will contain nothing other than my own rather trite and half-baked observations about this hot, hot, hot debate, in which I’m not so much a participant as a moaning bystander injured by a stray bullet. Beware, reader.
From what I can understand, people who debate the filioque belong to one of two camps. They either think that the filioque rightly remains a theological issue that divides the Churches East and West, or they do not. I’m oversimplifying, of course, because not everyone in each camp belongs to it for the same reasons.
Let also my bias in this issue be known. With the little that I know, I consider myself a member of the latter camp. I don’t think the filioque is a valid point of division. As far as I can tell, St. Maximos, in his letter to Marinus, bridged the East-West differences quite clearly and very charitably. That being said, I also think that the filioque should be removed from the Roman Catholic version of the Creed. Whatever the historical circumstances that led to its insertion into the original Symbol, we live now in a different era, and the West at present has no dogmatic convictions about the Spirit or the Son that absolutely require its retention. I say if there’s a whole half (or a whole “lung”, if you will) of the Church for whom the filioque is noxious, and the other half is not dogmatically attached to it, then it should go.
It’s not that I don’t think Trinitarian theology is important, or that I don’t care who’s who in the Trinity as long as we say that there are three Persons. To those who say that the filioque controversy rightly remains a theological obstacle, I’d have to say that I simply don’t see how we can justify our longstanding schism on a subject so far beyond human comprehension—namely, God’s inner being. It seems to me that, in order for us to maintain that the filioque is a valid dividing issue, we have to be absolutely sure about at least two things: (1) the exact nature of the relationships among the Persons of the Trinity; and (2) the unconditional validity of our statements about those relationships after accounting for the poverty of human language to describe the ineffable God. To have this kind of absolute surety, it seems to me also, is entirely offensive to the apophaticism of Scripture and the Fathers.
I came across these words of St. Ephrem the Syrian the other day, and wondered what he would think about some of the incredibly complex and sophisticated arguments that are delivered in debates about the filioque.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be reached only by Their names;
do not look further, to Their persons, just meditate on Their names.
If you investigate the person of God, you will perish,
but if you believe in the name, you will live.
Let the name of the Father be a boundary to you,
do not cross it and investigate His nature;
let the name of the Son be a wall to you,
do not cross it and investigate His birth from the Father;
let the name of the Spirit be a fence for you,
do not enter inside for the purpose of prying into Him.
(Memra on Faith 4:129-40)*
I think the Harp of the Spirit would charge us with prying (or trying to pry) into the hidden God. If he did, I’m afraid I’d be inclined to agree.
———
* Quoted in Sebastian Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1992), p. 63.
June 28, 2008 at 12:20 am
It’s refreshing to know that I’m not alone in my Filioque ignorance/near apathy. As a fellow bystander in the debate, I don’t see it as justifiably dividing the Church either but I’m not sure that it would be a good idea for the West to remove it from the Creed.
When I attend Eastern mass at a Ukrainian Catholic Church, we do not say the filioque of course. Yet as I understand it, according to Orthodox to Catholic convert James Likoudis, the Eastern Churches which are received into communion may retain the original creed in praxis, but must assent to the Catholic dogma of the filioque.
The problems I see with removing it would be 1. Sending the wrong message to Catholics & 2. I don’t think it would actually help in unifying the Church. If there were some large scale agreement between East & West contingent upon removing the Filioque from the creed, that would probably be workable so long as the dogma was still assented to. The Catholic Church cannot rescind the dogma though.
June 28, 2008 at 12:55 am
Tim,
I’m not aware of the existence of a Catholic dogma of the filioque. As far as I can tell, what is required by the Catholic Church is that those who seek communion apply a generous hermeneutic and not call the filioque heretical. What is your understanding?
Your fellow bystander,
W.H.
June 28, 2008 at 1:36 am
Wei Hsien,
Thanks for the quotation from St. Ephrem. It reminds me of a favorite passage from St. Gregory the Theologian’s Fifth Theological Oration (Or. 31.8):
“What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God.” (Tr. NPNF ii.7, p. 320.)
I hope the discussions on my blog do not constitute a prying into the mystery.
Peter
June 28, 2008 at 1:47 am
Wei-Hsien Wan,
Not to pick an argument but I do not see how this differs significantly from certain complex theological issues that separates Catholics & Protestants or other various ecclesial bodies from one another. I have questions about many of the fine points concerning the Reformation & Counter-Reformation debates, but I do not say that they are irrelevant *prior* to serious engagement of the issue. Both the Western & Eastern Church authorities have throughout the centuries produced dogmatic statements on the issue, naming it as important, so the weight of virtually the entire episcopate would seem to be against the assertion that it is all a non-issue.
June 28, 2008 at 2:18 am
I’m reserving judgement on whether the filioque itself should be a serious ecumenical stumbling block, as I also lack the necessary background. I’ve tended to think not, but have recently become less sure of this but, as I say, need to get considerably more patristic grounding before commenting with any degree of certainty.
But what I do think is an absolute scandal is that the Latin Church should unilaterally change a creed defined by an ecumenical council. Even if the filioque itself were theologically unobjectionable that would be cause enough for complaint and a good reason to return to the original creed.
June 28, 2008 at 4:06 am
@ Dr. Gilbert: Thank you for the quotation from St. Gregory. This student finds no evidence of prying on your weblog (and hopes that you didn’t think that I did)—except maybe in the comments of a certain reader of late. I do not mean by this post to suggest that any theologizing about Trinitarian processions constitutes “prying”. I’m only suspicious of people who can be so certain that the Spirit proceeds from the Father in a manner entirely independently of the Son, so as to divide Christians over it.
@ NeoChalcedonian: I don’t think I’m saying that the filioque is a non-issue, and don’t mean to make light of the ecumenical conversations that have taken place about it. As my proposal for its removal suggests, I think the controversy can and ought to be resolved. My contention is with “theologians” who claim to know enough intimate details about the inner life of the Trinity to know that the Son had nothing at all to do with the procession of the Spirit. Seems a bit much. If I’ve led you to think that I’m shrugging off the entire debate, I apologize for my lack of clarity. I’ve always been a theological bull in the ecclesial china shop.
@ Sr. Macrina: While you reserve your judgment, I’m rather intent on testing the size of my mouth with my right foot with this post. (The weekend’s almost here, after all.) I’ve often wondered—here I go again—how much of the filioque controversy is an ecclesiological and/or a canonical point of contention rather than a strictly theological one. That is, for some Orthodox, the Latins changed things while they weren’t looking and then said, “That’s just the way it’s going to be from now on, so get with the program (or creed).” For this, the remedy, I think, is not theology but an apology.
June 28, 2008 at 7:52 am
If not the filioque then pick from the list. Those who wish for the church to remain divided will have no shortage of issues. We Catholics and Orthodox must decide on what is absolutely essential and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. Of course, this presupposes a desire for unity– the lack of which causes our hearts to ache.
June 28, 2008 at 8:53 am
Wei-Hsien,
Like Tim and yourself, I have to admit my ignorance and indifference to the controversy. I am likewise inclined to say that it is a matter impossible to know and so not worth fighting over when there are so many things that should be agreeable and are not put into practice.
The *real* scandal of the filioque in my understanding is that there is no scandal: the average Catholic or Orthodox (and certainly Protestant/evangelical) would have no strong feeling on the matter and even amongst those for whom there is an opinion I imagine that many of them have received categories of understanding and have not genuinely tried to test alternative understandings.
-JAK
July 2, 2008 at 10:48 am
“If there is a special circle of the inferno described by Dante reserved for historians of theology, the principal homework assigned to that subdivision of hell for at least the first several eons of eternity may well be the thorough study of all the treatises–in Latin, Greek, Church Slavonic, and various modern languages–devoted to the inquiry: Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father only, as Eastern Christendom contends, or from both the Father and the Son (ex Patre Filioque), as the Latin Church teaches?” (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Melody of Theology)
“Is it [the Filioquist controversy] not a false problem, which leads inevitably to a sterile war of words?” (Sergius Bulgakov)
July 2, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Pontificator: Amen!
The crazy thing is that, if I mentioned “Filioque” to most of my fellow Catholic parishioners, they’d think I was referring to some new delicacy offered at the local Greek restaurant. They’d be amazed to learn that it’s a Church-dividing issue over which countless pixels are spilled (so to speak) daily on the Internet. They’d probably ask, quizzically, “Don’t those people have a life?” ;)