I was wondering if anyone could expound upon the Anglican view of the Trinity over against an Eastern Orthodox view. I know that we share many of the same creeds; however, I believe that there are some differences between the East and West on this issue. It would be helpful if someone could offer an argument in favor of the Western view of the Trinity over the Eastern perspective. To share some of the commonalities between both views would also be helpful. Also, feel free to recommend any Anglican books on the Trinity.
It depends on who you ask. The Church of England - and the Episcopal Church in turn - has retained the filioque addition to the "Nicene" Creed in the Prayer Book, and the doctrine also appears in (1) the Thirty Nine Articles, (2) the "Athanasian" Creed, (3) the Litany, and (4) the Veni Creator Spiritus in the Rite of Ordination. On the other hand, there has always been a school of thought within Anglicanism (see C.B. Moss for a recent example) which has affirmed that the filioque should be omitted for ecumenical reasons. Because our theology still affirms the Spirit's procession from the Son, I personally think such a move would be interpreted as an empty gesture. But more to the point, I think the Western, Augustinian understanding of the Trinity helps to make more coherent sense of the data of Scripture in ways that the comparatively underdeveloped Eastern doctrine does not.
Many of the Fathers, including many of the Greek Fathers, affirmed the filioque view. In recent ecumenical dialogue, as well as during the Councils of Florence and Constance, it has become clear that the difference between the two views is more hypothetical than actual. The two views are convertible between the one and the other. The main argument against the Filioque is not theological, but that it was added after the Council. That's highly problematic in itself, but what's worse is that it was done by Papal fiat, as an early exercise of Papal power. Those are reasons enough to consider it optional, and if we want to call another council and ratify the Filioque officially, I would have no objections. Not that I'm a strong objector either way (since the two views are mutually convertible). It's more a point of procedure than theological substance.
As Stalwart said, there's no real point of theological difference between the Eastern and Western view of the trinity. The primary point of difference is that we in the West appended "and from the Son" to the Nicene Creed. Effectively the difference is on where the Holy Spirit originates from. The Eastern view is that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. The Western view is that the Holy Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son. The dispute began because the EO believed that the addition of the Filioque would lead to the relegation and dismissal of the Father's role in the Trinity. The West believed removing it would lead to the relegation and dismissal of the Son's role in the Trinity. I personally think we probably shouldn't be adding stuff to the Creeds, but history has born out the truth of who was correct. The answer is neither. Nothing changed. Christians in the West and the East continue to hold the same opinions on the Trinity, in substance. The argument has been proven to be procedural, as Stalwart said. It's an argument over whether or not it was proper and lawful to append the Nicene Creed, not whether it actually fundamentally alters our relationship with God. But you'll still find tens of thousands of people that will argue to their dying breath that it will, blisfully ignoring 1500 years of evidence to the contrary, because some old codger in 600AD wrote a persuasive argument.
The Eastern view is fine as long as it's understood as (1) an underdeveloped form of what later became the Western view, rather than as (2) an implicit denial of it. The primary theological consequence of the Orthodox revisionist repurposing of the Eastern view is that the divine missions end up telling us nothing about God Himself. Of course, option 1 above is precisely what the Orthodox deny. It's not merely 'procedural'. Arguments over whether it was proper to "add" to the Creed simply never held water; they merely served as a pretext to justify Byzantine independence from the Papacy. There's no cogent reason to cater to the Orthodox on the issue.
The three P's of the filioque, Procedure, Procession, and Primacy. Procedure: The 1st Council of Constantin0ple set the place the words of the Creed and did not include the Filioque. The most usual argument is that the filioque was added at the third council of Toledo in 589. As is so often the case, this transpires not to be true, and whilst that council was very significant and brought an end to Arian Supremacy on the Iberian Peninsula, the council affirmed the Creed, and it was again affirmed in Recared's. This council also affirmed the Anathema's of Ephesus, and went on to require that the creed should be sung on Sundays, High Days and Holy Days. By the mid 700's it seems that the Filioque was being used in Iberia and Gaul, and I think Pepin the Short suggested that the Byzantines had removed it. By around 800 Charlemagne certainly used it as a political weapon to drive the wedge between east and west, though the Popes did not move or assent on this at all. There have been many who suggest that it was simply a copying error that got missed and then replicated, which would make it one doozey of a typo! Procession: Augustine was probably the first of the Fathers to articulate a theology of double procession. The Cappadocian Fathers certainly went close, but always seemed to draw back. This may well have been a concern to ensure the the pneumatomachian heresy did not get any traction. (this suggested taht the Holy Spirit was a created being). The Eastern concern is that the sense of origin which the idea hold in Greek robs the sections of the creed dealing with the Father of validity. (they normally talk of the monarchical integrity of the Father). Both Augustine, and Aquinas are clear in the idea that where the Spirit proceeds from the Son the Spirit has always in the first instance proceeded from the Father. Many Westerners seem to miss that and speak of Jesus as the source of the Spirit. When the Roman Mass is celebrated in Greek it does not include the Filioque. Primacy: In 1014 (14th of February) at the Coronation of Henry II as HRE, Benedict VII allowed the filioque to be used in Rome for the first time. When the East protested this breach with the Creed of the Councils, the response came as a claim to the office of the keys and required that the East submit to Papal Authority. This ultimate led to the Great schism in 1054. My view is that the Filioque does not have to be wrong, however it lacks the finesse of the Nicene Creed, and is easily misunderstood or misinterpreted. The Juxta position of the the articles affirming the Councils and the Prayer Book including the Filioque in the Nicene Creed I find challenging. The same might be said the the Jerusalem Declaration. As a matter of standard practice I do not say the filioque, even though it is part of the liturgy in the Church where I most normally worship. I recognise that @Invictus and I come at this from different directions, yet there is more that binds us together than tears us apart.
When the Eastern Christians heard about the filioque, they exclaimed, "Holy Toledo!" And now you know..... the rest of the story.
Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit is one of the classic works that Easterners will find some comfort in. Few Westerners have read it, and it is interesting, and you will recognise in it a very different approach, not simply to the subject, but in the theological approach. I thought that I would upload a copy for those who are interested in reading from a different approach. Toledo was a very important Cathedral on the Iberian Peninsula and the centre of the Mozarabic Rite, and ancient usage like Sarum, that was largely overrun by forms of the Latin Rite. Much of Toledo's faith, practice and liturgy saw more connection with Alexandria, and Hippo, with the route of transmission across the Northern edge of the African Continent. It is also worth noting that the call for Constantine to call the 1st Council of Nicaea came from a synod in Cordoba, perhaps 200 kilometers south of Toledo. The Mozarabic rite continues to exist, and I think in the USA has churches in Washington and Cincinatti. http://www.gcatholic.org/dioceses/diocese/covi0.htm. It is one of the parts of the Catholic Church of which most of us know little. So I imagine if they exclaimed 'Holy Toledo', they may well have done so with less frivolity, my friend.
Sheesh, Botolph, it was just a jest in good fun. Not making any point whatsoever. I suppose my humor is geared more toward Americans than an Australian; you may not be at all familiar with the reference to Toledo, Ohio (USA) from the old tv show, M*A*S*H (Cpl. Klinger), or with Paul Harvey's "The Rest of the Story" radio series.
I was also going to point out the reference to Botolph but you beat me to it. I actually laughed out loud when I read it. A little humor can do much good for theology (just don’t tell St. Benedict).
I have read the Mystagogy multiple times. It’s a textbook example of what happens when a career bureaucrat writes theology to satisfy political ends. Photios was a very highly educated man, but the work is replete with hairsplitting, bad exegesis, and flagrant violation of the fundamental laws of logic, which - since we can only assume these features were deliberate - makes plain that its purpose was to serve as political propaganda, not as serious theology. In that vein, St. Anselm of Canterbury’s work On the Procession of the Holy Spirit is more than a match for it.
My first take on it was that it was a rant. I have since modified that view, however Indies not see anything of the possibility of seeing any other position being reasonable. I am very fond of Anselm, not loved in the East, however I suspect has more bearing on the thirty nine than many people recognise.
I have been reading this thread with considerable interest and have so far not contributed, mostly out of respect for the knowledge of church history of others over my own. I see the Holy Trinity as a mystery that is incapable of being fully understood by any human mind except that of Christ himself, by virtue of being himself an experiential member of it. When it comes down to brass tacks though, I think the doctrine of the Trinity as has been formulated by the Church is an attempt to reconcile otherwise utterly contradictory statements in scripture, both Old and New Testaments, concerning the divinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, and the fact that scripture also clearly states that there is only ONE GOD. Without The wholesome doctrine of the Holy Trinity, scripture cannot be held to be uncontradictory, authoritative or universally inspired. It is that which makes it essential as the doctrinal cornerstone of orthodox Christianity. The actual cornerstone being Jesus Christ Himself. .
It would be a shame for the Mystagogy to be what Photios is chiefly remembered for. Even most Orthodox do not know that Photios was a key contributor to the revival of classical learning in 9th cent. Byzantium. He was also at one point the Byzantine ambassador to the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad. He died in communion with Rome. The original dispute with the Papacy was over the irregularity of his appointment to the Ecumenical Patriarchate by Imperial fiat (since the See was already occupied at the time). Photios was reconciled to all parties involved before he died. It is highly unlikely that the Mystagogy is what he wished to be remembered for.
I agree that the Eastern theology of the Trinity is far less developed and robust than the Western. That’s why back to Botolph’s post, my only objection to the filioque is Procedural. But in terms of inherent development, the Byzantine theological worldview on this point and one various others really suffers in comparison to the West. Their embrace of Palamas and rejection of classical realism in philosophy has led to catastrophic consequences. I’m a Western man through and through, so we just need to address the Procedural aspect of the filioque.
What I want to know is, why are the tacks always brass? Not so sure how well the saying works in Spanish, though. Brass tacks = tachuelas de latón (somehow it doesn't have the same ring to it!). As Mr. Spock might have said, 'I fail to see what the composition of small fastening devices has to do with a theological concept.'
I think it is very Western to think that Western theology is somehow superior to Eastern Theology. Equally it is very Eastern to think that Eastern Theology is somehow superior to Western Theology. Rome as the centre of Empire had a particular hierarchical view of the world and in some ways that can be seen reflected in an ecclesiology and and theology that reflects something of the hierarchical sense. The Eastern view can indeed seem a little more chaotic, and one thing that the East does not embrace is what might be termed systematic theology. The entirely egalitarian understanding of the relationships within the Triune Godhead, is and indeed must remain a mystery. To contemplate God in a way that could fully understand and comprehend God, would be to contemplate a God who could not be God, because God is incomprehensible. For the Eastern Mindset the Father is the source of all that is. There is a danger in the filioque of undermining that fundamental understanding. The Son is begotten of the Father before time. The Spirit proceeds (emanates) from the Father before time. John of Damascus advanced what is called Perichoresis which is generally accepted as orthodox, in both the East and the West. The danger the East sees in the Filioque is that it provides the opportunity for and understanding of the relationship of the persons of the Holy Trinity to be hierarchical rather than Circumincession. The four verses here from 4G are indicative of the problems of taking one verse of scripture, and not looking wider. In the account of the Baptism, the Spirit presumably descends from the Father. In John 14 we find an understanding of the Spirit being sent by the Father in the Name of Jesus. In John 15 26 the statement is clearly Jesus sending the Spirit from the Father, and in the Johannine Pentecost we see Jesus Breathes the Spirit on the Disciples. John 1.33: I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” John 14.26: But the Advocate,* the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. John 15.26: ‘When the Advocate* comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. John 20.22: When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. Augustine, the Western Father of Double Procession, did say that where the Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Spirit has in the first instance proceeded from the Father, this is a view further upheld by Aquinas. You may drink wine from the bottle, though I am sure as good Anglicans you would prefer to drink it from the glass. So we may say that the wine has proceeded from the bottle and the glass, however that means both, not one or the other. The wine cannot proceed from the glass if it has not in the first instance proceeded from the bottle. I get why the East struggles with the western addiction to the filioque, because even though they do not embrace systematic theology, they will dissect the theological proteins out of and atom with a very fine knife.
With respect, this is simply not correct. The view that Aquinas defended, and which was later dogmatically defined at Lyon (1272), and reinforced at Florence (1439), is that the Father and the Son are “one principle” of the Holy Spirit, “through one act of spiration”. There is no “double procession” in official Western teaching. There is also no definitive “Eastern” mindset on the issue; there are at least three, and quite possibly five or six, conceptually distinct Eastern approaches: 1) Pre-Nicene (Dionysius of Rome, Origen, etc.) 2) Nicene/Post-Nicene (two Gregorys, Basil) 3) Damascene/Photian (Antiochene) 4) Palamite: ousia = primary substance 5) Palamite: ousia = secondary substance 6) Eternal, non-hypostatic procession (Staniloae) There is no serious issue with views 1-2 (which are both Alexandrian in spirit), aside from mere underdevelopment. Views 3-6 are increasingly problematic logically, philosophically, and exegetically. It is critical that we keep clear which Eastern view is being defended at any one time. A standard Orthodox tactic is to conflate them. All three persons are the source of all that is, the Son (and the Holy Spirit) no less than the Father, and all three are self-existent by virtue of their common possession of the divine nature, with which each of the three persons is identical. The phrase “monarchy of the Father” does not occur in the Fathers, and when the Fathers do refer to “the Monarchy”, it is the one divine nature that is clearly signified (cf. Dionysius of Rome, Gregory Nazianzen, etc.). The modern Eastern overemphasis on the Father’s role in the Trinity is not only revisionist and anachronistic but has also convincingly been demonstrated to be incoherent by philosophical theologians such as Richard Cross. The only substantive theological issue at stake is our knowledge of God. This was Barth’s objection. The Eastern view - by which I mean any view inclusive of the Photian position - by severing the divine missions from the divine persons’ identities, logically entails agnosticism about the trinitarian divine essence (though not necessarily the divine existence). This hypothesis receives provisional confirmation in the fact that apophatic theology not only receives incredibly strong emphasis in Eastern theology but is actually understood to be superior to cataphatic theology.