Your Beatitude,
Venerable fathers,
Some time ago the official ecclesiastic periodical
“ECCLESIA” (2014, 561-568) had published a very
interesting article by Professor Emeritus Panagiotis
Boumis on the problem of the “Filioque”.
|
...Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et
vivificantem, qui
ex Patre
Filioque
procedit...
|
Pursuant to that publication and in abridged form,
the same article was also published by the other
ecclesiastic periodical “EFIMERIOS”, as well as by
other magazines, newspapers and websites (in Greek,
German and French).
We believe this article has made evident the
beginning of the problem which is the first,
serious obstacle towards a closer and more sincere
communion and communication between East and West,
and we are of the opinion that it will not be
difficult to understand and to hurdle this obstacle,
when those concerned discern the decisive role that
the two prepositions:
“åê”
(ex) and “áðü”
(a) play, in the matter of the direct or indirect
procession of the Holy Spirit.
26 Cum autem venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam
vobis
a Patre, Spiritum veritatis, qui
a Patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit
de me;
A simple
replacement in the Vulgate translation (above) of
John 15:26 (of the preposition “a” with the
preposition “ex”) is enough to put matters into
their proper place and consideration.
And this proposal is of course feasible –or,
more precisely, compulsory– because it is indicated
and imposed by the very rules of Grammar and Syntax
between the prepositions “åê”
and “ex”, and between “áðü”
and “a” (ab).
We think that everyone should observe the rules of
these two, basic languages.
If we disregard them and do not observe them,
then matters become complicated, without the
possibility of solving any problem.
However, we
believe that this possibility now exists, as does
the positive predisposition by all parties
concerned; which is why we are of the opinion that
the aforementioned should be utilized by the
pertinent inter-Christian committees.
We have attached hereto the relative article, as
published by the periodical “EFIMERIOS”.
Respectfully yours,
Panag. Boumis, Prof. Emeritus of Athens University
Demetrios Gonis, Prof. Emeritus of Athens University
Thomas Ioannides, Reserve Prof., Chairman Theology
Dept. of Athens University
Constantine Vlahos, Prof. Emeritus of Athens
University
Har. G.Sotiropoulos, Prof. Emeritus of Athens
University
Nikol. E. Tzirakis, Prof. Emeritus of Athens
University
**********************************************************
The “obstacle” of the Filioque and its withdrawal
Until now, the disagreement and the conflict in the
matter of the Filioque (=and from the Son) between
East and West had focused on the meaning and the use
of the verb “to proceed forth”.
However, we believe that this scrutiny was
imperfect and deficient – the reason being that the
verb “to proceed forth” takes on various meanings
and interpretations, depending of course on the
prepositions that accompany it.
Thus, when the verb “to proceed forth” is
accompanied by the preposition “ðáñÜ”
(Gk=by) or “åê”
(Gk=from), then it will mean “to originate from”,
“to have as its source”, “to have as its starting
point”, “to have as its beginning”.
This is because the preposition “åê” denotes the direct origin, the direct descent, the source, the
beginning of a subject or an object from another.
(Of course we are talking about the time that the
New Testament was composed, when the Greek language
was rich in subtle distinctions).
Oppositely, when the verb “to proceed forth” is
accompanied by the preposition “áðü”, then it signifies “comes out from”, “comes from”,
“sent by”.
The reason is that the preposition “áðü”
denotes an indirect origin or descent of a person or
a thing from another.
We could say that it merely “passes through”
the other, without the other being its actual source
or beginning or starting point.
In that manner, it reaches us – it makes its
appearance – NOT directly from its source, but
through something else – through a mediator –
inasmuch as it has come through another person or
thing.
Something analogous occurs in the Latin of their
time (not contemporary Italian).
Thus, when
the equivalent of the Greek verb “åêðïñåýåóèáé”
(“procedere”) is accompanied by the Latin
preposition “ex”, it signifies “originates
from”, “springs from”, “has its starting point” –
that is, it signifies the direct, the
immediate descent and origin.
On the contrary, when it is accompanied by the
preposition “a” (ab), then it signifies
“comes out of”, “comes through”, “is sent by”.
This happens, because the preposition “ex”
(like the Greek “åê”)
may signify the immediate, the direct
descent and origin; however, the “a” (ab) on
the contrary signifies an indirect origin or
descent, as does the Greek preposition “áðü”.
These must be kept in mind by every Christian, if he
honestly desires to understand how the “Filioque”
problem was created – as we shall see further along
– and how we can arrive at its solution with a
modicum of good will.
First of all, it should be noted that matters went
askew from the very beginning.
In other words, in the first translations of
the New Testament from the Greek original into the
Latin language the preposition “ðáñÜ”
in John 15:26 was rendered with the
preposition “a” (=through), which signifies
an indirect origin, instead of being rendered with
the preposition “ex”, which signifies a
direct origin.
(«
üôáí äå Ýëèç ï ðáñÜêëçôïò üí åãþ ðÝìøù õìßí
ðáñÜ ôïõ ðáôñüò, ôï Ðíåýìá ôçò áëçèåßáò ü
ðáñÜ ôïõ ðáôñüò åêðïñåýåôáé, åêåßíïò
ìáñôõñÞóåé ðåñß åìïý»)
(“But when the Helper comes, Whom I shall send
to you
from the Father, the Spirit of truth who
proceeds
from the Father, He will testify of Me.)
26 Cum autem venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam
vobis
a
Patre, Spiritum veritatis, qui
a
Patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit
de me;
It appears that the Latins had remained with this
impression even later on, when the second Ecumenical
Council (381 A.D.) formulated the Symbol of Faith
and had correctly used the preposition “åê” and “ex” ( in the Greek text:
“ôï
åê
ôïý Ðáôñüò åêðïñåõüìåíïí”,
and respectively in the Latin text “qui
ex
Patre procedit”).
But it seems that even then, they had not
perceived the difference in the meaning and
significance of the relative prepositions “åê”
and “áðü”
or “ex” and “a”, by continuing to have
in mind the indirect energy of the “a”
(=through) that was in the translation of the New
Testament. Thus,
without much thought, they added the term “Filioque”
(=and the Son), even though the Latin Credo had the
“ex”.
They did this and were ultimately misled,
because the indirect sending
forth-origin-descent indeed takes place (=is) - by
the Son.
This carelessness, oversight and aberration was
easily repeated; among other reasons being the
neo-Europeans’ lack of a profound knowledge of
Latin, and also because their own “subsidiary”
languages lack the subtle distinctions when using
the prepositions.
Of course we cannot deny that various geo-political
reasons on the part of the Franks had also
contributed to this erroneous addition, as many
historians have pointed out. But we need to stress
that the linguistic problem was that which had
confused matters, as it was an erroneous theoretical
base. It
eventually also embroiled Westerners in this
unpleasant for all Christians development, outcome
and situation.
Following the above, the solution (the withdrawal of
the obstacle) and the exit are rendered facile, but
also imperative. We should leave the Latin Symbol of
the Faith as it was in the beginning, by only
removing the “Filioque” addition and replacing the
preposition “a” with the preposition “ex”
in the Latin text of the Gospel (John 15:26):
26 Cum autem venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam
vobis
a Patre, Spiritum veritatis, qui
a
Patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit
de me;
Analogous corrections should follow, in the other
linguistic forms of translations – either verbatim
or according to the meaning – as well as in the
preexisting and currently existing causes and
results of the deviation.
*************************************
Sources
Regarding these distinctions, one can refer to the
Syntax works by Ach. Tzartzanos (pp. 78,80, 83),
Const. Katevenis (pp.55-56,66) and
J.Humbert-G.Kourmoulis, p.302).
See also
J.Humbert-G.Kourmoulis, as above, pp.290 and 25. Cmp.
also Th. A. Kakrides’ Grammar of the Latin Tongue,
pp.99 and 163-165, as well as Ant. Vrakas’ The
Grammar of the Latin word, pp.178 and 185, also 179
and 187.
Translation: K.N.
