Page images
PDF
EPUB

fore (between 792 and 795) defended the Greek formula of John of Damascus and patriarch Tarasius, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.1 But the violent assault of Photius upon the Latin doctrine, as heretical, drove the Latin church into the defensive. Hence, since the ninth century, the Filioque was gradually introduced into the Nicene Creed all over the West, and the popes themselves, notwithstanding their infallibility, approved what their predecessors had condemned.2

The coincidence of the triumph of the Filioque in the West with the founding of the new Roman Empire is significant; for this empire emancipated the pope from the Byzantine rule.

The Greek church, however, took little or no notice of this innovation till about one hundred and fifty years later, when Photius, the learned patriarch of Constantinople, brought it out in its full bearing and force in his controversy with Nicolas I., the pope of old Rome. He regarded the single procession as the principal part of the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit on which the personality and deity of the Spirit depended, and

1 In his defence of the second council of Nicea against the Libri Carolini, which had charged Tarasius with error. See Migne's Opera Caroli M., II. 1249. 2 Pope John VIII., in a letter to Photius, condemned the Filioque; but this letter is disputed, and declared by Roman Catholic historians to be a Greek fabrication. See above, p. 315, and Hefele, IV. 482. It is not quite certain when the Roman church adopted the Filioque in her editions of the Nicene Creed. Some date it from Pope Nicolas, others from Pope Christophorus (903), still others from Sergius III. (904-911), but most writers from Benedict VIII. (1014–1015). See Hergenröther, Photius, I. 706.

3 In his Encyclical letter, 867, and in his Liber de Spiritus Sancti Mystagogia, written after 885, first edited by Hergenröther, Ratisbon, 1857. Also in PнoTII Opera, ed. Migne (Par., 1861), Tom. II. 722-742 and 279-391. Comp. Hergenrother's Photius, vol. III., p. 154 sqq. The title uvoraywyia (=ieopoĥoyia, dɛohoyia, sacra doctrina) promises a treatise on the whole doctrine of the third person of the Trinity, but it confines itself to the controverted doctrine of the procession. The book, says Hergenröther (III. 157), shows "great dialectical dexterity, rare acumen, and a multitude of various sophisms, and has been extensively copied by later champions of the schism." On the controversy between Photius and Nicolas, see 70, p. 312-317.

denounced the denial of it as heresy and blasphemy. After this time no progress was made for the settlement of the difference, although much was written on both sides. The chief defenders of the Greek view, after the controversy with Photius, were Theophylactus, Euthymius Zigabenus, Nicolaus of Methone, Nicetus Choniates, Eustratius, and in modern times, the Russian divines, Prokovitch, Zoernicav, Mouravieff, and Philaret. The chief defenders of the Latin doctrine are Æneas, bishop of Paris, Ratramnus (or Bertram), a monk of Corbie, in the name of the French clergy in the ninth century,2 Anselm of Canterbury (1098), Peter Chrysolanus, archbishop of Milan (1112),* Anselm of Havelberg (1120),5 and Thomas Aquinas (1274), and in more recent times, Leo Alacci, Michael Le Quien, and Cardinal Hergenröther.7

1

§ 108. The Arguments for and against the Filioque.

We proceed to the statement of the controverted doctrines and the chief arguments.

I. The Greek and Latin churches agree in holding—

(1) The personality and deity of the third Person of the holy Trinity.

(2) The eternal procession (¿ñóрɛvσ5, processio) of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity.

1 Liber adv. Græcoз, in Acheri Spicileg., and in Migne, "Patrol. Lat.," vol. 121, fol. 685-762. Insignificant.

• Ratramni contra Græcorum opposita, Romanam ecclesiam infamantia, libri IV., in Acherii Spicil., and in Migne, l. c., fol. 225-346. This book is much more important than that of Æneas of Paris. See an extract in Hergenrother's Photius, I. 675 sqq.

De Processione Spiritus Sancti.

He went in the name of Pope Paschalis II. to Constantinople, to defend the Latin doctrine before the court.

In his Dialogues with the Greeks when he was ambassador of Emperor Lothaire II. at the court of Constantinople.

• Contra errores Græcorum, and in his Summa Theologiæ.

Photius, I. p. 684-711.

(3) The temporal mission (ñéμp, missio) of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, beginning with the day of Pentecost, and continued ever since in the church.

II. They differ on the source of the eternal procession of the Spirit, whether it be the Father alone, or the Father and the Son. The Greeks make the Son and the Spirit equally dependent on the Father, as the one and only source of the Godhead; the Latins teach an absolute co-ordination of the three Persons of the Trinity as to essence, but after all admit a certain kind of subordination as to dignity and office, namely, a subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to both. The Greeks approach the Latins by the admission that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (this was the doctrine of Cyril of Alexandria and John of Damascus); the Latins approach the Greeks by the admission that the Spirit proceeds chiefly (principaliter) from the Father (Augustin). But little or nothing is gained by this compromise. The real question is, whether the Father is the only source of the Deity, and whether the Son and the Spirit are co-ordinate or subordinate in their dependence on the Father.

1. The GREEK doctrine in its present shape. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (ἐκ μόνου τοῦ πατρός), as the beginning (dp), cause or root (aitia, pign, causa, radix), and fountain (y) of the Godhead, and not from the Son.1

1 Confessio Orth., Qu. 71 (Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, II. 349 sq.): Διδάσκει [ἡ ἀνατολικὴ ἐκκλησία] πῶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὡς πηγῆς καὶ ἀρχῆς τῆς θεότητος. Then follow the proofs from John 15: 26, and the Greek fathers. In the same question, the formula kaì έk Tov vľov (Filioque) is rejected as a later adulteration. In the heat of the controversy, it was even stigmatized as a sin against the Holy Ghost. The Longer Russian Catechism, on the Eighth Article of the Nicene Creed (in Schaff's Creeds, etc., II. 481), denies that the doctrine of the single procession admits of any change or supplement, for the following reasons: "First, because the Orthodox Church repeats the very words of Christ, and his words are doubtless the exact and perfect expression of the truth. Secondly, because the Second Ecumenical Council, whose chief object was to establish the true doctrine respecting the Holy Spirit, has without doubt sufficiently set forth the same in

John of Damascus, who gave the doctrine of the Greek fathers its scholastic shape, about A. D. 750, one hundred years before the controversy between Photius and Nicolas, maintained that the procession is from the Father alone, but through the Son, as mediator.' The same formula, Ex Patre per Filium, was used by Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, who presided over the seventh oecumenical Council (787), approved by Pope Hadrian I., and was made the basis for the compromise at the Council of Ferrara (1439), and at the Old Catholic Conference at Bonn (1875). But Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father.2

The arguments for the Greek doctrine are as follows:

(a) The words of Christ, John 15: 26, understood in an exclusive sense. As this is the only passage of the Bible in which

the Creed; and the Catholic Church has acknowledged this so decidedly that the third Ecumenical Council in its seventh canon forbade the composition of any new creed." Then the Catechism quotes the following passage from John of Damascus: "Of the Holy Ghost, we both say that He is from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father; while we nowise say that He is from the Son, but only call Him the Spirit of the Son." v. 4.)

(Theol., lib. 1. c. 11,

1 See the doctrine of John of Damascus, with extracts from his writings, stated by Hergenröther, Photius, I. 691 sq.; and in the proceedings of the Döllinger Conference (Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, II. 553 sq.). Dr. Langen (Old Cath. Prof. in Bonn), in his monograph on John of Damascus (Gotha, 1879, p. 283 sq.), thus sums up the views of this great divine on the procession: 1) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son. 2) He does not proceed from the Son, but from the Father through the Son. 3) He is the image of the Son, as the Son is the image of the Father. 4) He forms the mediation between the Father and the Son, and is through the Son connected with the Father.

2 Langen, l. c. p. 286: "So hat demnach die grosse Trennung zwischen Orient und Occident in diesem Lehrstücke die Folge gehabt, dass die Auffassung des Damasceners, gleichsam in der Mitte stehend, von dem Patriarchen Tarasius amtlich approbirt und vom Papste Hadrian I. vertheidigt, weder im Orient noch im Occident zur Geltung kam. Dort galt sie als zu zweideutig, und hier ward sie als unzureichend befunden."

the procession of the Spirit is expressly taught, it is regarded by the Greeks as conclusive.

(b) The supremacy or monarchia of the Father. He is the source and root of the Godhead. The Son and the Spirit are subordinated to him, not indeed in essence or substance (ovoía), which is one and the same, but in dignity and office. This is the Nicene subordinationism. It is illustrated by the comparison of the Father with the root, the Son with the stem, the Spirit with the fruit, and such analogies as the sun, the ray, and the beam; the fire, the flame, and the light.

(c) The analogy of the eternal generation of the Son, which is likewise from the Father alone, without the agency of the Spirit.

(d) The authority of the Nicene Creed, and the Greek fathers, especially Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and John of Damascus. The Antiochean school is clearly on the Greek side; but the Alexandrian school leaned to the formula through the Son (dià toũ víoũ, per Filium). The Greeks claim all the Greek fathers, and regard Augustin as the inventor of the Latin dogma of the double procession.

The Latin doctrine is charged with innovation, and with dividing the unity of the Godhead, or establishing two sources of the Deity. But the Latins replied that the procession was from one and the same source common to both the Father and the Son.

2. The LATIN theory of the double procession is defended by the following arguments:

(a) The passages where Christ says that he will send the Spirit from the Father (John 15: 26; 16: 7); and that the Father will send the Spirit in Christ's name (14: 26); and where he breathes the Spirit on his disciples (20: 22). The Greeks refer all these passages to the temporal mission of the Spirit, and understand the insufflation to be simply a symbolical act or sacramental sign of the pentecostal effusion which Christ had

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »