And the Son

[East_and_West]

I don’t see how you can possibly say that is not how the union of brest says it. All it says is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. It does not give the Spirit any participation in the actual origin of the Son. The Greek Fathers didn’t make the Son an origin either. Through the Son was the most used form in the Greek and that is exactly what ‘manifests’ means.

I am not sure what you are saying exactly the Son’s part is.

So do you believe that your western bretheren are heretics?

 

[Ghosty]

All it says is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. It does not give the Spirit any participation in the actual origin of the Son.

Yes, it does. “One origin, from the Father through the Son”. The origin is from the Father as Source, through the Son.

This is exactly the same as in you analogy of the water hose. There is one origin of the water, from the tap through the hose. The water doesn’t come out twice, and it doesn’t come out otherwise than through the hose.

The Greek Fathers didn’t make the Son an origin either. Through the Son was the most used form in the Greek and that is exactly what ‘manifests’ means.

I’m not sure what you mean by origin, but it is certain that Eastern Fathers made the Holy Spirit come from the Son in some manner, as connected to his origin from the Father. St. Gregory of Nyssa did so explicitely, as I’ve quoted already. St. Athanasius said:

Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son. And since the Son says, “everything that the Father has is mine (John 16:15),” we will discover all these things also in the Spirit. through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, who said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17),” so also is the Spirit of the Son; for, as the Apostle says, "He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’

If by origin you mean source, then of course I agree that the Son is not the origin. If you are using origin to mean the point at which the Holy Spirit exists as a Divine Person, and saying that the Son has no part until after that, then I must totally disagree in keeping with the Fathers, both East and West. The Holy Spirit does not exist apart from proceeding from the Son, just as the water-spout in your example does not exist except in proceeding from the hose. This doesn’t make the Son the Source, but He does participate in the one and only Spiration of the Holy Spirit.

One important thing to note, which may not have been made clear, is that participation doesn’t mean becoming identical to. To use a merely linquistic example that isn’t meant to relate directly to the Filioque, Latin theology says that we participate in God by Grace; in other words we become Divine without becoming God in the same way that God is God.

When I say “participate in the origin”, I’m not saying that the Son and the Father are equally “origin”; they are unequal in that one is the Source and the other is not (if they were not then the Son would Beget Himself), they are equal in that the Holy Spirit proceeds in one motion from both. What I’m saying is that what is done by the Father is not done without the Son, just as in you example of the hose (which I’ve used before to illustrate the filioque) what is done by the tap in putting forth the water is not done without the hose.

When you look at the two Persons, Father and Son, their roles are different and unequal. When you look at the procession, however, they are not making two different contributions, but one together, “from the Father, through the Son”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Apotheoun]

Yes, it does. “One origin, from the Father through the Son”. The origin is from the Father as Source, through the Son.

As I said, this is where the two sides disagree. In Byzantine triadology the Father immediately, is source, origin, and cause of the Spirit’s procession (ekporeusis), and so the Spirit – as far as His eternal origin is concerned – is not from or through the Son, because as the *Synodikon of Orthodoxy *states: “. . . the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically.” Nevertheless, the Spirit as uncreated activity (i.e., grace) is made manifest (proienai) through the Son, and this manifestation is both temporal and eternal.

 

[Ghosty]

As I said, this is where the two sides disagree. In Byzantine triadology the Father immediately, is source, origin, and cause of the Spirit’s procession (ekporeusis), and so the Spirit – as far as His eternal origin is concerned – is not from or through the Son. Nevertheless, the Spirit as uncreated activity (i.e., grace) is made manifest (proienai) through the Son, and this manifestation is both temporal and eternal.

And yet the Union of Brest does not say what you’re saying, namely that it is not “through the Son”.

They could have said “One origin from the Father, and is manifested through the Son”, but they didn’t. They said “one origin, from the Father through the Son”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Apotheoun]

When I say “participate in the origin”, I’m not saying that the Son and the Father are equally “origin”; they are unequal in that one is the Source and the other is not (if they were not then the Son would Beget Himself), they are equal in that the Holy Spirit proceeds in one motion from both. What I’m saying is that what is done by the Father is not done without the Son, just as in you example of the hose (which I’ve used before to illustrate the filioque) what is done by the tap in putting forth the water is not done without the hose.

Yes, I understand your position, but sadly we will have to agree to disagree, because I do not believe that the Son is a source, origin, or cause of the Spirit in any way. The Father alone is personally, source, origin, and cause within the Godhead, and so these properties cannot be shared with the other two hypostaseis. Moreover, as St. John Damascene said, “the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous” [St. John Damascene, *De Fide Orthodoxa, Book I, Chapter 8].

 

[Apotheoun]

And yet the Union of Brest does not say what you’re saying, namely that it is not “through the Son”.

They could have said “One origin from the Father, and is manifested through the Son”, but they didn’t. They said “one origin, from the Father through the Son”.

Peace and God bless!

Alas, you and I interpret the Union of Brest differently. As I see it, the assertion of “one origin” refers to the Spirit’s hypostatic procession (ekporeusis), which is from the Father alone, while the “per filium” refers to the Spirit’s manifestation (proienai), which is through the Son.

 

[Apotheoun]

Ghosty,

In Byzantine triadology the term “origin” (arche) is applied to the Father as a unique property peculiar to His hypostasis alone. Consequently, it cannot be shared with the Son or the Spirit without confounding the persons of the Trinity.

God bless,
Todd

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty,

In Byzantine triadology the term “origin” (arche) is applied to the Father as a unique property peculiar to His hypostasis alone. Consequently, it cannot be shared with the Son or the Spirit without confounding the persons of the Trinity.

God bless,
Todd

Yes, I’ve already covered that understanding and agree with it, thank you.

There is one Source, the Father.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Apotheoun]

Ghosty,

One other thing, the quotations from St. Athanasios about the “relations” between the Father and the Son, and the Son and the Spirit being in some sense analogous, do not have the meaning that you – as a Westerner – ascribe to them within the Byzantine tradition, because for Eastern Christians the persons of the Trinity are not “relations.” In fact, the “relations” are not what distinguish the persons in the Eastern tradition; instead, their manner of existence (tropos hyparxeos) is what distinguises them, and their “relations” are a logical conseqence of their different modes of origin.

God bless,
Todd

 

[Apotheoun]

Yes, I’ve already covered that understanding and agree with it, thank you.

There is one Source, the Father.

Peace and God bless!

Within the Godhead there is one source, one origin, one cause, and that is the Father alone, and not the Son.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Within the Godhead there is one source, one origin, one cause, and that is the Father alone, and not the Son.

Well there ya go then.

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty,

One other thing, the quotations from St. Athanasios about the “relations” between the Father and the Son, and the Son and the Spirit being in some sense analogous, do not have the meaning that you – as a Westerner – ascribe to them within the Byzantine tradition, because for Eastern Christians the persons of the Trinity are not “relations.” In fact, the “relations” are not what distinguish the persons in the Eastern tradition; instead, their manner of existence (tropos hyparxeos) is what distinguises them, and their “relations” are a logical conseqence of their different modes of origin.

God bless,
Todd

Despite not having worshipped regularily in a Western church for two years, and having spoken to my Melkite Bishop on this issue, eh? I was wondering when the insinuation of “Western error-think” was going to made again.

Say what you will about relations not distinguishing the Persons, but the fact remains that Eastern Fathers did do so. You’re making a sharp distinction between East and West where there isn’t one, at least not in the Early Church. According to St. Gregory of Nyssa it is by relation alone that we distinguish between Persons of the Trinity.

“while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another”

It’s splitting hairs to say that there’s such a difference between manner of existence and relation of origin.

Within the Godhead there is one source, one origin, one cause, and that is the Father alone, and not the Son.

Again, depending on the meanings of the terms being used, I completely agree. When origin means Arche, then it is the Father alone. You can’t take the Western use of “origin” and treat it as synonymous with the Greek when it isn’t; you’re comparing the color orange with the fruit.

Again, nobody is making the Son the Source, Arche, or Aitia of the Holy Spirit. Your continued insistence that the West is doing so hasn’t yet been backed up with any evidence. Nor has your continued insistence that only the word “ekporousis” can apply to Hypostatic procession. Still waiting on any evidence for that one.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Apotheoun]

Ghosty,

Ghosty,

Once again you have misread my post. Nowhere in my post did I use the word “error,” to describe the Western viewpoint; instead, what I said is that the two sides read the same texts, but interpret them differently.

Now as far as “relations” within the Trinity are concerned, the West holds that the persons are relations, while the East holds that the persons are related to each other because of their distinct modes of origin. Clearly, these two ways of approaching the Trinitarian mystery are not identical, and our dialogue can to nowhere until you take the different approach of the East into account.

Finally, St. Gregory, like the other two Cappadocian Fathers, holds that the persons are distinct by their tropos hyparxeos, and not by their relations, because their relations are dependent upon their distinct modes of origin. In other words, the persons are related, but they are related because they are truly subsistent. Thus, saying that there is a “difference in respect of cause” within the Trinity is not the same as saying that the persons are relations of opposition within the Godhead.

It’s splitting hairs to say that there’s such a difference between manner of existence and relation of origin.

This is no doubt your opinion, but you have not backed up your position by recourse to the original Greek texts of the Eastern Fathers.

God bless,
Todd

 

[Apotheoun]

Again, nobody is making the Son the Source, Arche, or Aitia of the Holy Spirit. Your continued insistence that the West is doing so hasn’t yet been backed up with any evidence. Nor has your continued insistence that only the word “ekporousis” can apply to Hypostatic procession. Still waiting on any evidence for that one.

Saying that the Son participates in the origin of the Spirit makes Him – whether you like it or not – a co-principle with the Father (i.e., a diarchy), and anything that undermines the monarchy of the Father is unacceptable within the Eastern tradition.

The Son does not cause the Spirit even in a secondary or instrumental sense, because the Father personally is the arche, aitia, and pege of the Godhead itself, and of the other two hypostaseis.

P.S. - The Greek word “ekporeusis” (i.e., to issue out of a source) means origination or procession from a cause, and that you refuse to accept this, while also refusing to accept that the meaning of “proienai” excludes the concept of causation, is lamentable. I find it strange that the Vatican accepts this to be the case, but that you reject what is common knowledge among patristic scholars.

 

[Ghosty]

Thus, saying that there is a “difference in respect of cause” within the Trinity is not the same as saying that the persons are relations of opposition within the Godhead.

I’ve not said anything about relations of opposition; you are putting ideas and words in my mouth. Rather than addressing your assumptions about what I’m saying, address what I’m saying and we’ll waste a lot less time.

Now, rather than getting sidetracked, I’ll let you explain what St. Athanasius really means by the Holy Spirit having the same relationship to the Son as the Son has to the Father.

Once we’ve gone over that, we can come back to what differences in “manner of existence” there can be other than origin in Three Persons who have not only identical natures, but share the same nature and essence.

This is no doubt your opinion, but you have not backed up your position by recourse to the original Greek texts of the Eastern Fathers.

Neither have you, which is my entire point. When you back your assertions about the definition of ekporousis and proienai up, we’ll be able to have a discussion.

The Greek word “ekporeusis” (i.e., to issue out of a source) means origination or procession from a cause, and that you refuse to accept this, while also refusing to accept that the meaning of “proienai” excludes the concept of causation, is lamentable. I find it strange that the Vatican accepts this to be the case, but that you reject what is common knowledge among patristic scholars.

I’ve already shown that the Vatican does not accept this to be the case. The Vatican even quotes an St. Gregory Nazianzus who uses proienai to describe both the Begetting of the Son and the ekporousis of the Holy Spirit. See post #124.

Either you are wrong in saying that “proienai” excludes any kind of causation, or the Vatican is wrong. I’m simply using the Vatican’s definition as the more reliable at this point, given that you’ve supplied no evidence whatsoever for your definition.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ghosty,

Say what you will about relations not distinguishing the Persons, but the fact remains that Eastern Fathers did do so. You’re making a sharp distinction between East and West where there isn’t one, at least not in the Early Church. According to St. Gregory of Nyssa it is by relation alone that we distinguish between Persons of the Trinity.

NOT JUST ST. GREGORY. I will add that to my research and get the quotes. You are correct. The Persons are distinguished only by their relations. EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD ARE EQUAL. This is a clear patristic teaching. Whatever brother Apotheoun is talking about must be another development peculiar to Eastern Orthodoxy that occurred after the Great Schism between East and West.

Again, nobody is making the Son the Source, Arche, or Aitia of the Holy Spirit. Your continued insistence that the West is doing so hasn’t yet been backed up with any evidence. Nor has your continued insistence that only the word “ekporousis” can apply to Hypostatic procession. Still waiting on any evidence for that one.

Don’t give in an inch on these points, brother. I will be back with the patristic quotes soon (hopefully, by tomorrow, by Saturday for sure).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Apotheoun]

Now, rather than getting sidetracked, I’ll let you explain what St. Athanasius really means by the Holy Spirit having the same relationship to the Son as the Son has to the Father.

It does not mean what you think it means because the persons are not relations, whether understood simply as “relations” or “relations of opposition.” As far as St. Athanasios’ comment is concerned, he is speaking about the communion of the Son and Spirit within the Godhead, and not about their distinct hypostatic origination from the Father. Clearly, until you make a distinction between the origination of the Son and Spirit, which in both cases is from the Father alone, our dialogue will stagnate.

That said, there is not support in the Greek Fathers for the Augustinian / Scholastic view that the persons are relations, or that they are relations of opposition, etc.; in fact, they are not relations at all, they are related, and they hypostatically relate by their distinct tropos hyparxeos, which must not be confused with their relationship of communion with the divine essence. In other words, you are once again confusing origination with manifestation.

 

[Apotheoun]

I’ve also given thought to the apparent contradiction in Metropolitan John’s assertion that the Son participates in the flow of Divine Essence, but not hypostasis. It’s possible, and I have no way of knowing for sure, that he was meaning that the property of “being a Person” comes from the Father alone, in the sense that Divine Personhood is first and foremost a reflection of the Father, while the Divine Essence in general is spoken of generally of the whole Trinity, and therefore can be said to pass from the Son to the Holy Spirit.

If that’s indeed what he means, then I would simply counter that the Latins aren’t distinguishing between Person and Divine Essence in such a way that would necessitate making such a qualification. Personhood, like everything else of the Divine Essence, is immediately from the Father as Source, just as omnipotence, and Glory, and anything else you can say about Divinity. They aren’t making the Son the “exemplar” of Personhood that impresses itself on the Holy Spirit, but are saying that the Son, by reason of His Begotteness from the Father, participates directly in the immediate communication of Divinity, and all its “features”, from the Father to the Holy Spirit (see my above illustration using the hanging balls for a kind of picture of how this kind of relationship can work).

Again, I don’t know if that’s what the good Bishop meant, but it would certainly make sense of the apparent confusion!

Peace and God bless!

This is the closest that you have come to the Byzantine position yet, because the Son can be said to participate in the energetic manifestation (phanerosis) of the Spirit, which reveals their consubstantial communion.

Nevertheless, this flowing or shining forth of the Spirit has nothing to do with causation or origination, becasue the Father alone is personally the cause (aitia) not only of the other two hypostaseis, but of the Godhead itself.

 

[jimmy]

This is the closest that you have come to the Byzantine position yet, because the Son can be said to participate in the energetic manifestation (phanerosis) of the Spirit, which reveals their consubstantial communion.

Nevertheless, this flowing or shining forth of the Spirit has nothing to do with causation or origination, becasue the Father alone is personally the cause (aitia) not only of the other two hypostaseis, but of the Godhead itself.

Apotheoun,

Can you expand on this? I have read Metr. Zizioulas say that the Father is the cause of the Godhead. What is the distinctions between the term Godhead and God? It seems like a contradiction of terms to say that the Father - who is God - is the cause of the Godhead.

Second, can you explain what Metr. Zizioulas means with this statement?

3. Another important point in the Vatican document is the emphasis it lays on the distinction between επόρευσις (ekporeusis)and processio. It is historically true that in the Greek tradition a ***clear distinction ***was always made between *εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) *and προείναι (proeinai), the first of these two terms denoting exclusively the Spirit’s derivation from the Father alone, whereas προείναι (proienai) was used to denote the Holy Spirit’s dependence on the Son owing to the common substance or ουσία (ousia) which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or υπόστασις (hypostasis) receives from the Son, too, as *ουσιωδώς (ousiwdws) *that is, with regard to the one ουσία (ousia) common to all three persons (Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor et al). On the basis of this distinction one might argue that there is a kind of Filioque on the level of ουσία (ousia), but not of υπόστασις (hypostasis).

I would especially like to know what he means when he says the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone as hypostasis but from the Son as well as ousia.

 

[Ghosty]

Apotheoun:

It does not mean what you think it means because the persons are not relations, whether understood simply as “relations” or “relations of opposition.”

I’m not saying they ARE relations; you are saying that I’m saying that. I’m saying they are differentiated by their relations of origin. I said it before and I’ll say it again: we can’t have a reasonable discussion if you keep attributing beliefs to me that I haven’t stated and do not hold.

To quote St. John of Damascus:

For we recognise one God: but only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, manner of existence, do we perceive difference…

…

But when we look to those things in which the Divinity is, or, to put it more accurately, which are the Divinity, and those things which are in it through the first cause without time or distinction in glory or separation, that is to say, the subsistences of the Son and the Spirit, it seems to us a Trinity that we adore. The Father is one Father, and without beginning, that is, without cause: for He is not derived from anything. The Son is one Son, but not without beginning, that is, not without cause: for He is derived from the Father. But if you eliminate the idea of a beginning from time, He is also without beginning: for the creator of times cannot be subject to time. The Holy Spirit is one Spirit, going forth from the Father, not in the manner of Sonship but of procession; so that neither has the Father lost His property of being unbegotten because He has begotten, nor has the Son lost His property of being begotten because He was begotten of that which was unbegotten (for how could that be so?), nor does the Spirit change either into the Father or into the Son because He has proceeded and is God./QUOTE]

It is only by these, relations of origin, that we can recognize difference between the Divine Persons: God Unbegotten is the Father, God Begotten is the Son, God Proceeding is the Holy Spirit.

As far as St. Athanasios’ comment is concerned, he is speaking about the communion of the Son and Spirit within the Godhead, and not about their distinct hypostatic origination from the Father.

By all means, prove it. I don’t see anything that would indicate a clear case either way, nor has anything I’ve read of St. Athanasius’ led me to believe that he made the kinds of distinctions that would require such a difference. Nothing of his indicates that he spoke of Communion within the Godhead as different from Hypostatic origination.

This is the closest that you have come to the Byzantine position yet, because the Son can be said to participate in the energetic manifestation (phanerosis

) of the Spirit, which reveals their consubstantial communion.

And you know that I don’t believe the Son only shares in energetic manifestation, but that the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit bears direct relation to the Son as proceeding generally, not in terms of ekporousis, from Him. Just as the sea is from the river, without the river being the source of the sea, as both the Eastern and Western Fathers have attested.

Even if it was only the Western Fathers who attested to this, as they unanimously do, I would say that as a Catholic I must take it seriously regardless of my particular tradition. That doesn’t mean I’d take it exclusively, but I would certainly not write it off simply because it’s not Greek, or Coptic, or Armenian; as a Catholic I don’t have that luxury since I’m an inheritor of the entire Apostolic Church, not just the part I happen to be most fond of. The fact is, however, that it’s not just the Western Fathers, but Fathers in all of the traditions who attest to the same thing; there are a couple of apparent dissenters, such as St. John of Damascus, but they are few compared to the many, and even their objections can be understood in ways that don’t undercut the other teachers and traditions. I can’t simply throw aside St. Ambrose, St. Athanasius, and St. Gregory of Nyssa just because of a single passage in one of St. John of Damascus’ writings. I won’t write off such a huge portion of Patristic thought just to defend one minute, and later, idea, unless it can be shown that this idea is absolutely critical to everything those Fathers held to be essential, and that they either DID uphold this minute idea (I’ve not seen any evidence whatsoever that they did), or that they WOULD have rejected their own teachings had they recognized its importance (again, no evidence for this yet, since it would first require showing that “from the Father alone” is absolutely essential to defending the Monarchy of the Father, something that hasn’t be done yet).

Mardukm: I look forward to seeing you citations, brother.

Peace and God bless!