I wanted to start a discussion on the filioque clause.

Do you agree with the Roman explanation of it, that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle"? Do you have some other understanding of it? Or do you simply reject the idea?

Do you think its addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and use as such is justifiable? Or would you prefer that the Creed be recited only in its original form?

I am Orthodox, but I'm not one of those Orthodox who believes that the Filioque necessarily equals heresy. I'm what Bishop Kallistos Ware would call a "dove" on the issue. There can be expressions of the double procession which are compatible with Orthodoxy, even complimentary. The main issue for me is the unilateral addition to the Creed, although now that it's been in the Latin version of the Creed for so long, I don't advocate its obligatory removal. It should probably be made optional, as many Anglicans have advocated.

Hmmm. That's quite a charitable view for an Eastern Orthodox believer.

 Well, I hope so! There are even some others like me (though you might not know it reading most Orthodox internet sites)! 

I'll post my personal opinions right now.

I disagree with the Roman Catholic idea that "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle" and regard this idea as a heresy condemned by my Church.

On the other hand, I think it's entirely possible to conceive of an understanding of the dual procession that is compatible with orthodoxy, namely if it is not in reference to eternality/ontology and is rather speaking of the temporal missioning of the Holy Spirit from the Son.

With respect to the ontology of the Holy Spirit and His eternal procession, I affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

As to the clause, I recognize the seemingly ecumenical condemnation of the addition of this clause as found in the late portion of the undivided first 1,000 years of Christendom and regard this as the standard and norm established within Christianity. While I recognize that it may not be in the background of inherently heretical beliefs for some groups to recite the Creed with the clause, I do think for clarity's sake that the restoration of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be requested for restoration of full communion.

My position on the Filioque is essentially that of Fr Theodore Stylianopoulos, in his article "The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon, or Error?", printed in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review in 1986 and available online here. I would also point out the 2003 Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consulation.

In my opinion, a far more serious problem for relations between Rome and the Orthodox Churches is the precise nature of universal primacy and the role of the Bishop of Rome. But I'm something of a moderate on this issue as well. :-)

I agree that the filioque is rather problematic. Not that I have a problem with believing that the Spirit may proceed from the Son (there ARE biblical references...). However, the filioque puts into question the "Monarche" of the Father. Or put inot theological terms: To believe that the third hypostasis of the Godhead proceeds from the second hyspostasis bears the danger of elimination of the base on which the Trinitarian theology is resting. And that is more than problematic. And it has born some rather interesting fruits in the West.

Furthermore, for the West just to go ahead and insert something into the Creed is a far more serious issues than the acual filioque-clause. It speaks of a theologicl understanding of the primacy of Rome that neither any Eastern Orthodox Christian, nor I as an Anglican for that matter, can support.

It might be of interest to note that some newer Anglican liturgical formularies are no omitting the filioque (or they make it optional - which is a typical Anglican solution, but not quite theological honest...!). In the Canadian Book of Alternative Services for example the Nicene Creed is recited without the filioque. This is comes from both a change form a functional understanding of the persons of the Trinity to an ontological Trinitarian principle within Anglicanism and from ecumenical contacts with East Orthodoxy. And it is a good think, I believe.

Finally, I am going to make a wild assumption: I suspect most of our fellow Christians on here have no idea what we are talking about - and why it even matters. And that saddens me, because this (and similar) theological debates are very important to the life of the church and to our own spritual identity.

Markus

O dear. And next time I post I will not rely on Firefox to find my many typos... Apologies.

I'll freely admit to being one of those 'fools who rush in where angels fear to tread'.

I can't say that an ignorance among the vast majority of Christians over the filioque controversy 'saddens' me.

Quite the contrary, I'd suggest that rejecting a combatitive approach within the faith is a sign of maturity and confidence in one's beliefs.  And I rejoice that most Christians have moved beyond the semantics of Latin declensions and suffixes ... because, as an organized religion, Christianity has had a nasty tendency to indulge in 'internecine purges' (my euphemism for centuries of murderous violence and sadistic persecution).  I guess it's human nature that we delight in using divine authority to pick at the specks in others' perspectives while ignoring the planks in our own eyes.

To cite a more contemporary popular-culture parallel example --- consider how some Trinitarians debate(d) which word to use; 'is' or 'in'.  Should the choice of an 's' over the 'n' imperil a person's soul?  Does staking a defence on the significance of a two-letter word impress many as being vitally important.  Did Bill Clinton, for instance, rescue the U.S. presidency from a precipitous slide to the status of a dirty joke in his rationalization, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is"?

I recall a younger friend who was contemplating the R.C. priesthood.  It maddened him that the only co-worker who'd bother to discuss religion with him was the son of a Protestant minister.  I once lent him a book that favoured my perspective on Christianity and, rather than read it, I later discovered (when I asked for its return) that he'd actually burnt it.  In the throes of one discussion, he accused me of 'heresy'.

And I had to laugh, and thank him.  I've always regarded myself as somewhat of an anachronism, so to be accused of something so antiquated came as a distinct complement.  It reminded me of that absurd Monty Python sketch where the running gag is, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!".

It is good that we contemplate the nature of God.  And civil disputation can help us in that understanding.  Still, I recall that Jesus consistently condemned the Pharisees, and those who pinned their claims to salvation on adherence to strict observence of religious laws and technicalities rather than spirit-driven faith, hope and charity.

And that is perhaps the greatest challenge faced by the organized church and its theologians ... to ensure that the institution, and it's accumulated rules and intepretations, don't obscure the simple, essential message of Jesus Christ.  I, quite frankly, question the purpose of inventing shibboleths as stumbling blocks to trip up those aspiring to grow in their faith.  I would think that folk on this site should be predisposed to advocating for inclusivity.  It is for a higher authority to judge, and ultimately separate the sheep from the goats.

Anyway, I enjoy reading the contributions to this forum ... it's a real incentive to reach more regularly for the New Testament.

What...?

I'm not quite sure I know what you're talking about.

"Homoousios" versus "homoiousios" comes to mind. But nothing about "is" vs. "in".

This is all very interesting but the question arises are we mono-theists or poly-thiests.  Reading the Nicene Creed is like listening to a politician skate an issue.

It begins:

We believe in one God
      the Father, the Almighty,
      maker of heaven and earth,
      of all that is, seen and unseen.

Ok, that’s fine.  If you stop there, we are monotheists.  But, it doesn’t stop there; it goes on to say:

 We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
      the only Son of God,
      eternally begotten of the Father,
      God from God, Light from Light,
      true God from true God,
      begotten, not made,
      of one Being with the Father;
      through him all things were made.

So, now we’ve introduced a second party to our monotheism and we have dualism.  

For the next couple of sentences it goes on to mention Mary, Pilate, the crucifixion and finally the resurrection.  Then it moves on to the Third Person:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
          and the giver of life,
      who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
      who with the Father and the Son
          is worshiped and glorified,
      who has spoken through the prophets.

Now we are up to three.  The Triune God, the Tinity, the three in one.  So, if you just take it as it is read, we are polytheistic.    But it is argued that all those “I Believes” don’t change the fact that it is only one God.    If that is what they truly meant, then they did a poor job of writing it.   

Even poor old Athanasius had a problem with it.  Now, he is one of the most revered theologians of the early Christian movement and he fought with this concept for most of his life.  Finally in the Athanasius Creed he throws in the towel and says:

“The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible.”  

In effect, he says that the whole thing is “incomprehensible”.  Well, guess what?  The whole thing is “Incomprehensible” and yet here we are 1800 years later still trying to figure it out.    Everybody seems to miss a very basic point.  We will never understand God.  It is not within our power to know the unknowable.  And, yet we persist.  Go Figure!.

I'll read some of your posts later, but for now I'll just mention some of my own thoughts (stuff I pulled out of my ass). I personally never thought it was that big of a deal and didn't understand why people make such a big deal out of it, although I do recognize the importance of the issue. To me the main issue is that we agree on what the Trinity is: One God in three persons. How the three persons of the Tinity operate is to some extent a mystery that I don't intend to get caught up in. We know that all three existed as one before time began, according to various Scripture passages, and that Jesus is the Word manifested and that the Spirt came down at Pentecost to guide us into all Truth and be our Comforter and Counselor. So, in one aspect it may be safe to say that, chronologically speaking according to Christian tradition, we have experienced the Trinity in this order: the Son proceeding from the Father and the Spirit proceeding from the Son. How the Trinity operated before our experience is unknown. But, I can certainly understand how we could also say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because it was God's Spirit who acted on behalf of the Father in the Old Covenant and since we know that the Father and the Son work together we could say that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, although the Son had not put on flesh according to our physical timeline.

We believe that the Trinity is one God right? Not three seperate persons, right? So, each "personality" of the Trinity is related to the other, right? So, we are just getting ourselves caught up in how the Trinity functions, right? God is not divided and God does not argue with himself. One of his attributes is not higher than another, although we know that our God is a god of order. He isn't confused and his intent is not to confuse. We've got the Scriptures to tell us how God has operated in the past and how he operates now according to Christian tradition. We believe in One God. He lives among us and in us as Spirit and since the Spirt is Trinity, the Father and the Son are also presently continually "proceeding" from the Spirt. Remember to think outside of the context of time and space and focus on the Eternal aspect of who God is. So, that's my short synopsis or two cents worth of bs.

Can someone help me to understand why the Spirit can't proceed from the Father and the Son according to Orthodoxy? Why does the Spirit have to only proceed from the Father according to Orthodoxy, if we believe in one God, the Trinity?