And the Son

[mardukm]

The discussions on the Filioque that have developed in the Assyrian thread have led me to search the net for some (name removed by moderator)ut on this issue as it relates to Syriac Christianity.

I came across this paragraph, on the bottom of the page, and I would like to have some comments on the way the confession of the Holy Spirit is presented in the prayer of the Syrian Orthodox Church of South India:

---

When we say ‘Father’, the Son and the Holy Spirit come from him. When we say ‘Son’, the Father and the Holy Spirit are known through him. When we say Ruho (Spirit), the Father and the Son are perfect and complete in him. The Father is the Creator, not begotten; the Son is begotten, not begetting; the Holy Spirit (Ruho) proceeds from the Father, taking the person and the nature of the Father from the Son.​

I’m curious how this would be received by the Greek Catholics, and by the Eastern Orthodox, in that the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father is understood as a reception from the Son the Father’s person and nature.

Yeshua, would you say that this is similar to the general Maronite understanding?

Latin Catholics, what do you think of this formulation?

That was exactly the belief of the great Syrian Father St. John of Damascus:

See these posts for quotes from the Damascene:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3325883&postcount=3
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3327517&postcount=6

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ronyodish]

Marduk,

Thank you for the quotes from the Damascene.

I like how you put it:

“Whatever the Spirit receives from the Father, He receives it by way of the Son”

God bless,

Rony

 

[Apotheoun]

The quotations in the first link provided by Mardukm are from St. Hilary in his “On the Trinity” (Book VIII), and not from St. John Damascene.

 

[Ghosty]

Actually, the Council of Florence did not say that. As the quote indicates, that was an assertion in one of the speeches made at the Council. It did not make it into the decrees of the Council, and has no official status.

I’m not sure where you get that idea. What I quoted is from the Official Decree of Union with the Greeks, Session 6 of the Council of Florence. It is hardly from some speech given at the Council. You can read the text here.%between%

The Father alone has, of his own substance, begotten the Son, the Son alone has been begotten of the Father alone

I can’t find this text in either the Council of Lyons nor the Council of Florence. Where are you getting it from?

By far the most natural reading is that neither the Father and the Son are any more the principle or cause of the Spirit than the other, which precludes a reading of the Son as a “secondary” or “derivative” cause. The Fathers of Florence were learned, articulate men, who knew how to make their meaning clear. And, I submit, they did.

The Fathers of Florence explicitly said that the Father is Source, and the Son receives. You’ve not even shown where they say “equally”, and even if they did it would have to be read in the context of them stating that the Father is the Source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, as has always been upheld in Latin theology and can be shown time and time again.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Apotheoun,

The quotations in the first link provided by Mardukm are from St. Hilary in his “On the Trinity” (Book VIII), and not from St. John Damascene.

Thank you for the correction! Brother Ghosty, forgive me for misleading. The NPNF volume I was looking at contains BOTH the works of the Damascene AND St. Hilary. I got the two confused.

In any case, aside from brother Anthony’s quotes, I also offer this from the Damascene:
The Holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father THROUGH THE SON.
(Chapter 13, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)

But we know that the Spirit is united to the Father by way of procession, deriving his very Essence from the Father. Thus, we believe, along with the Damascene and numerous other Eastern and Oriental Fathers, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That is, the Holy Spirit has His very origin from the Father through the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alethiaphile]

I’m not sure where you get that idea. What I quoted is from the Official Decree of Union with the Greeks, Session 6 of the Council of Florence. It is hardly from some speech given at the Council. You can read the text here.%between%

I was mistaken to refer to it as a “speech”, but all it is is an asssertion by the Latin side that is recounted in the decree. It is not a dogmatic decree in itself.

I can’t find this text in either the Council of Lyons nor the Council of Florence. Where are you getting it from?

Again, the language about the Father being the Source is not in the dogmatic decree. I agree it should be taken into account, but it cannot override what is explicitly stated in the decree.

Just a further note: what your argument boils down to (and I’ve seen this time and time again in Catholic e-pologetics) is the idea that the Orthodox are making an issue out of nothing, that they are just being silly and intransigent. I think that’s rather self-serving. I’m not saying that misinterpretations don’t occur, but I think the Orthodox can be trusted to recognize a real conflict when they see one, and not just make one up. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

Just a note on my previous post; part of my reply to Ghosty appears in the “quote” section. Sorry, I haven’t gotten the hang of this system yet. Joe

 

[Ghosty]

Again, the language about the Father being the Source is not in the dogmatic decree. I agree it should be taken into account, but it cannot override what is explicitly stated in the decree.

Just a further note: what your argument boils down to (and I’ve seen this time and time again in Catholic e-pologetics) is the idea that the Orthodox are making an issue out of nothing, that they are just being silly and intransigent. I think that’s rather self-serving. I’m not saying that misinterpretations don’t occur, but I think the Orthodox can be trusted to recognize a real conflict when they see one, and not just make one up. Joe

I’m not sure what you mean by it not being in the “dogmatic decree”. It is in the official Decree of Union with the Greeks, and represents the proper understanding of the Latin position. To say that it’s not in the “dogmatic decree”, whatever that means, is to intentionally ignore what the Latins themselves said they meant by that decree.

As for the “equally”, the fact that it can be translated from the Latin as either “equally” or “at once” demonstrates that it is referring to the unity of the Spiration, and not to the Son and the Father’s role in the procession being identical. Even without the translation you were using I identified the error being built up.

As for the Orthodox being trusted to identify real conflicts, I’ve said nothing against the Orthodox on this matter; you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying, however, that so far you have ignored explicit passages from Decrees, and take other passages out of context. That has nothing to do with the Orthodox in general, but with your argument in particular.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alethiaphile]

I’m not sure what you mean by it not being in the “dogmatic decree”. It is in the official Decree of Union with the Greeks, and represents the proper understanding of the Latin position. To say that it’s not in the “dogmatic decree”, whatever that means, is to intentionally ignore what the Latins themselves said they meant by that decree.

Quite simply, the “dogmatic” part of the decrees of Florence are statements about what must be believed, usually prefaced by language such as “The Holy Roman Church therefore professes…” or “It must therefore be believed…” NOT “The Latins assert…” I will agree that the Latins asserted that the dogmatic statements are reconciliable with the monarchy of the Father. That does not demonstrate that they actually are reconcilable.

As for the “equally”, the fact that it can be translated from the Latin as either “equally” or “at once” demonstrates that it is referring to the unity of the Spiration, and not to the Son and the Father’s role in the procession being identical.

The fact that the CE does translate what the Jesuit Fathers translate as “equally” as “at once” does not necessarily mean it’s a good translation, but you conveniently slide over that issue. I could just as easily argue that the fact that the original Latin can be translated as “equally” proves that the issue is the Father and Sons respective roles in the spiration, so your proclamation of victory is a little premature.

Even without the translation you were using I identified the error being built up.

As for the Orthodox being trusted to identify real conflicts, I’ve said nothing against the Orthodox on this matter; you are putting words in my mouth.

You are being either obtuse or disingenuous here. The Orthodox believe that the Latin teaching here threatens the monarchy of the Father. You are saying they are mistaken; the monarchy of the Father is clearly preserved. You are in effect saying they are making a conflict where none exists. That is the entire tone of your’s and others’ posts on this topic.

I am saying, however, that so far you have ignored explicit passages from Decrees, and take other passages out of context.

Then you are mistaken. Specifically, what passages have I taken out of context? Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

As for the “equally”, the fact that it can be translated from the Latin as either “equally” or “at once” demonstrates that it is referring to the unity of the Spiration, and not to the Son and the Father’s role in the procession being identical.

I believe brother Ghosty was arguing that you need to take account of the FULL meaning of the word translated from Latin in order to interpret the phrase. He is NOT saying, “translate it this way OR that way” which is what you have argued. Hence, your own argument is fallacious, a false dichotomy.

Blessings,
Marduk.

 

[ronyodish]

I’m curious about the English word: “proceeds” or “proceedeth” as used in the English Creed of Greek Christians. This English word comes from, or is a transliteration of, the Latin “procedit” as found in the Latin Vulgate of John 15:26

I can then see why Latin Christians use it, but why do the Greek Christians use it? Shouldn’t they be using an English word, based not on the Latin, but on the Greek: “ekporeuomai”?

It’s strange, because even us Chaldean Christians use in English this word of Latin origin, instead of an English word based on the Aramaic: “napeq”

Just thought I’d share my insignificant ramblings

God bless,

Rony

 

[Alethiaphile]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,
I believe brother Ghosty was arguing that you need to take account of the FULL meaning of the word translated from Latin in order to interpret the phrase. He is NOT saying, “translate it this way OR that way” which is what you have argued. Hence, your own argument is fallacious, a false dichotomy.
Blessings,
Marduk.

Brother Marduk, I think I know exactly the point Ghosty was making. He explicitly said that the fact that one source translated the passage in question as “at once” meant that he (Ghosty) was correct in asserting that the pasage had to do with the “unity” of the procession, not the quality of the respective roles. If Ghosty has any complaints about how I interpeted him, he can make them himself. As it stands, your assertion that my argument is “fallacious” and “a false dilemma” is itself fallacious and, on the face of it, disingenuous. Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Rony,

I’m curious about the English word: “proceeds” or “proceedeth” as used in the English Creed of Greek Christians. This English word comes from, or is a transliteration of, the Latin “procedit” as found in the Latin Vulgate of John 15:26

I can then see why Latin Christians use it, but why do the Greek Christians use it? Shouldn’t they be using an English word, based not on the Latin, but on the Greek: “ekporeuomai”?

It’s strange, because even us Chaldean Christians use in English this word of Latin origin, instead of an English word based on the Aramaic: “napeq”

Just thought I’d share my insignificant ramblings
Those ramblings are NOT insignificant at all! I have often rambled on in my mind about that myself.

Along with a removal of filioque, there should be a concurrent push to use a different word from “proceeds” because the English word does not denote nor connote origination, but merely a going forth.

Similarly, if one maintains the use of the word “proceeds” then one should not complain about utilizing filioque, for the two together is wholly orthodox.

Blessings.
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

Brother Marduk, I think I know exactly the point Ghosty was making. He explicitly said that the fact that one source translated the passage in question as “at once” meant that he (Ghosty) was correct in asserting that the pasage had to do with the “unity” of the procession, not the quality of the respective roles. If Ghosty has any complaints about how I interpeted him, he can make them himself. As it stands, your assertion that my argument is “fallacious” and “a false dilemma” is itself fallacious and, on the face of it, disingenuous. Joe

This statement from you demonstrates the false dichotomy of your argument:
I could just as easily argue that the fact that the original Latin can be translated as “equally” proves that the issue is the Father and Sons respective roles in the spiration, so your proclamation of victory is a little premature.

As stated, Ghosty’s point is to take the FULL definition of the Latin word, not to say either “equally” OR “at once,” which is exactly what you have done in your fallacious counter-argument.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alethiaphile]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,
This statement from you demonstrates the false dichotomy of your argument:
I could just as easily argue that the fact that the original Latin can be translated as “equally” proves that the issue is the Father and Sons respective roles in the spiration, so your proclamation of victory is a little premature.
As stated, Ghosty’s point is to take the FULL definition of the Latin word, not to say either “equally” OR “at once,” which is exactly what you have done in your fallacious counter-argument.
Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, that was not Ghosty’s point, I am fully capable of deciding what Ghosty’s point was, I don’t believe you know what the original Latin term was, much less what its “full definition” is, and I’m frankly tired of you telling me that my argument is “fallacious” when you quite clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Joe

 

[Ghosty]

Marduk, that was not Ghosty’s point, I am fully capable of deciding what Ghosty’s point was, I don’t believe you know what the original Latin term was, much less what its “full definition” is, and I’m frankly tired of you telling me that my argument is “fallacious” when you quite clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Joe

Are you sure you know what my point was? Don’t I get a say in the matter at all?

I explained how the use of the term “equally” could be understood in an orthodox manner, if it was taken to apply primarily to the Spiration (i.e. the Spiration applies equally to the Father and the Son, as oppossed to the Father and the Son having the same relation to the Spiration). Since the passage can apparently be translated as “at once”, which would apply to the Spiration itself and not to the “sameness” of the role of Father and Son, it’s imprudent to suggest that it means the Father and the Son are quantitatively equal in the Spiration. This is especially true since the very same Council explicitely said they were different, namely that the Father is the Source and the Son receives.

Quite simply, the “dogmatic” part of the decrees of Florence are statements about what must be believed, usually prefaced by language such as “The Holy Roman Church therefore professes…” or “It must therefore be believed…” NOT “The Latins assert…” I will agree that the Latins asserted that the dogmatic statements are reconciliable with the monarchy of the Father. That does not demonstrate that they actually are reconcilable.

They didn’t just assert that the definition preserved the Monarchy of the Father, but actually stated how the definition is to be understood. Specifically, they said that the Father is to be understood as Source of all deity, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Son’s participation in the Spiration does not negate this. To take only one section of the text and pit it against its interpretive key, included by the very same authors, is a bit silly and in poor form. If you are serious about analyzing what the Latins were asserting, you must take into account what they explicitely ruled out of their definition; to say that the “dogmatic definition” (a dubious distinction within a united Conciliar document anyway, as it’s not as if the text we’re citing is a composite, but is part of a whole Decree of Union) can be read in such a way as to negate the Monarchy of the Father, when the Latins just a paragraph before explicitely defined the Monarchy of the Father, is weak and purely polemical.

The Latins should be taken at their word unless you can offer any evidence that they did, or do, not believe that the Father alone is “Source of all Deity” as they expressed at Florence, and in every subsequent public decree. I await your presentation of evidence.

You are being either obtuse or disingenuous here. The Orthodox believe that the Latin teaching here threatens the monarchy of the Father.

Actually, not all of them do. Sayedna Kallistos Ware certainly doesn’t hold this position, and neither do any of the Eastern Orthodox who are my personal friends and aquaintences (and members of our mission).

You are saying they are mistaken; the monarchy of the Father is clearly preserved. You are in effect saying they are making a conflict where none exists. That is the entire tone of your’s and others’ posts on this topic.

I’m not talking to “them”, I’m talking to you, and addressing the argument that you are presenting. I know not to paint all the Eastern Orthodox with a single color or brush, and perhaps you shouldn’t do so either.

This particular argument that you are presenting is deeply flawed, and quite obviously so. If some, or many, Eastern Orthodox hold to it then it remains the argument that is flawed, not the Orthodox in general. I won’t accept your attempt to expand this discussion over an argument into calumny against an entire Apostolic Communion; I’m simply not game for that, and it’s not the way I go about things at any rate.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Actually, not all of them do. Sayedna Kallistos Ware certainly doesn’t hold this position, and neither do any of the Eastern Orthodox who are my personal friends and aquaintences (and members of our mission).

We should include the Eastern Orthodox bishops who participated in a theological commission in the United States with the USCCB, producing a joint statement concerning Filioque…I don’t have the link, unfortunately. Perhaps someone else can provide it?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

We should include the Eastern Orthodox bishops who participated in a theological commission in the United States with the USCCB, producing a joint statement concerning Filioque…I don’t have the link, unfortunately. Perhaps someone else can provide it?

Blessings,
Marduk

Good point. A link to the Joint-Statement between U.S. Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Bishops is right here:

usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

Peace and God bless!

 

[Apotheoun]

. . . Just a further note: what your argument boils down to (and I’ve seen this time and time again in Catholic e-pologetics) is the idea that the Orthodox are making an issue out of nothing, that they are just being silly and intransigent. I think that’s rather self-serving. I’m not saying that misinterpretations don’t occur, but I think the Orthodox can be trusted to recognize a real conflict when they see one, and not just make one up. Joe

Well said. Sadly, Westerners fail to take into account that the Eastern tradition distinguishes between the existential procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Spirit as person (hypostasis), which is from the Father alone, and the Spirit’s manifestation (pephenos) through the Son, which clearly does not concern His eternal origin but simply His progression (proienai), both temporally and eternally, in the divine energy. To put it another way, Eastern theology has always made a distinction between the procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit, which is proper to the Father alone as person (hypostasis), and the progression (proienai) of the Spirit, which is from the Father through the Son; while this distinction – at least since medieval times – has been absent from Western theology.

 

[mardukm]

Well said. Sadly, Westerners fail to take into account that the Eastern tradition distinguishes between the existential procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Spirit as person (hypostasis), which is from the Father alone, and the Spirit’s manifestation (pephenos) through the Son, which clearly does not concern His eternal origin but simply His progression (proienai), both temporally and eternally, in the divine energy. To put it another way, Eastern theology has always made a distinction between the procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit, which is proper to the Father alone as person (hypostasis), and the progression (proienai) of the Spirit, which is from the Father through the Son; while this distinction – at least since medieval times – has been absent from Western theology.

No, brother. It is not just the economic progression in which the Son participates. Hopefully before the end of the week, I will provide quotes from the Eastern/Oriental Fathers to this effect (if someone else has not done so).

I would argue that something has disappeared from the EO pneumatology, rather than the Latin. I don’t believe the Latins EVER had the distinction, so it never disappeared from their Tradition. I should add that despite not formally teaching the distinction between Essence and Energy, the Latin Church has managed to maintain in its own way the Faith of the Church in the otherness of God from His creation.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I invite you to respond to my post#45, or wait until I give my list of quotes from Eastern/Oriental Fathers to fulfill my intention mentioned above.