And the Son

[Apotheoun]

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.

Please re-read what I said, because nowhere did I use the word “economic” in my post; in fact, I said the progression (proienai) of the Spirit from the Father through the Son is both temporal and eternal, but I refuse to confuse the existential procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Spirit as person, with His energetic manifestation.

 

[Apotheoun]

Dear brother Apotheoun,

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

The per filium applies only to the Spirit’s manifestation (pephenos) or progression (proienai), and not to His procession (ekporeusis) of origin.

 

[Apotheoun]

Dear brother Apotheoun,

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

I addressed the Eastern understanding of the per filium in a paper wrote some years ago while working on my MA degree:

. . . Latin Catholics will often bring up the concept of the per filium (i.e., that the Spirit proceeds through the Son), and will say that this Eastern idea is the equivalent of the Western filioque, but that is simply not the case, because the per filium is not referring to the existential origin of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), since as person the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) only from the Father, Who is the sole source of divinity. Instead, what the per filium is referring to is the manifestation (proienai) of the Spirit as energy from the Father through the Son, but this manifestation must never be confused with the Spirit’s hypostatic procession of origin from the Father alone, because this would involve a confusion of the person of the Father, with the person of the Son. Moreover, the failure of the West to recognize this important distinction is what led to the rejection of the so-called “union” council of Lyons II by the Council of Blachernae (A.D. 1285), which in its Tomus emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit from the Father alone, and His manifestation or progression as energy through the Son. In addition, it is important to note that this distinction is supported by St. John Damascene, who, in his treatise De Fide Orthodoxa, said that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, but “not from the Son”, and he confirmed this distinction yet again when – in another treatise – he wrote that, we speak of “. . . the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him * manifest and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence from Him”, and elsewhere he said that, “. . . the Word is a real offspring, and therefore Son; and the Spirit is a real procession and emanation from the Father, of the Son but not from the Son, as breath from a mouth, proclaiming God the Word.”*

Click the link to read more of the paper: The Filioque Controversy

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Apotheoun,

…he wrote that, we speak of “. . . the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him * manifest and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence from Him…”*
None of your quotes from the Damascene contradict the teaching that the Being of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. All agree that the Holy Spirit does not take His existence from the Son. BOTH the Son and the Spirit take their existence from the Father alone. Per Filium does not indicate the originating principle in the procession, but it does indicate a participating principle in the procession. And there is no want of evidence from the Eastern and Oriental Fathers (not to mention the Latin Fathers) that the Being of the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

I believe the difficulty with your acceptance of the Latin, Oriental, and ancient patristic understanding is precisely because of the dogmatic manner in which your Tradition has defined the distinction of Essence and Energy. As I’ve noted in the past, the distinction is present in the Oriental Fathers, but along with the Westerns, we maintain that God is simple.

You quote the Damascene as stating that the Spirit is “of the Son as through Him manifest and bestowed on creation.” But I believe your interpretation does not consider St. John’s detailed discussion on the Energy, Nature, and Will of the Godhead, which is simple, a discussion also contained in his Exposition on the Orthodox Faith. There is no problem in St. John to distinguish Essence and Energy, yet assert God’s actions flow from his Essence or Nature, and are not to be separated…God is simple- what He wills by His very Nature IS and manifests itself accordingly. I don’t see where the Damascene dichotomizes the Spirit’s manifestation in creation from his Being, because, simply put (no pun intended), the Spirit’s manifestation in creation is part and parcel of His Nature. Nature and purpose are one in the Godhead.

This notion of distinction in simplicity is evident not just in the Oriental Fathers, but also the Eastern Fathers such as Basil and the Cappadocians.

In any case, I do feel this topic merits further discussion. I will close by repeating that I will be giving quotes of the Eastern/Oriental patristic belief that the Son has a participation in the Procession itself by this weekend. But not only that, I see it will also be necessary to demonstrate from these same Fathers a belief in the Godhead as simple, i.e., that Nature and purpose/action are one in the Godhead.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Thank you for the link. I am very interested in your viewpoint.

 

[Apotheoun]

Dear brother Apotheoun,

None of your quotes from the Damascene contradict the teaching that the Being of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. All agree that the Holy Spirit does not take His existence from the Son. BOTH the Son and the Spirit take their existence from the Father alone. Per Filium does not indicate the originating principle in the procession, but it does indicate a participating principle in the procession. And there is no want of evidence from the Eastern and Oriental Fathers (not to mention the Latin Fathers) that the Being of the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

I believe the difficulty with your acceptance of the Latin, Oriental, and ancient patristic understanding is precisely because of the dogmatic manner in which your Tradition has defined the distinction of Essence and Energy. As I’ve noted in the past, the distinction is present in the Oriental Fathers, but along with the Westerns, we maintain that God is simple.

You quote the Damascene as stating that the Spirit is “of the Son as through Him manifest and bestowed on creation.” But I believe your interpretation does not consider St. John’s detailed discussion on the Energy, Nature, and Will of the Godhead, which is simple, a discussion also contained in his Exposition on the Orthodox Faith. There is no problem in St. John to distinguish Essence and Energy, yet assert God’s actions flow from his Essence or Nature, and are not to be separated…God is simple- what He wills by His very Nature IS and manifests itself accordingly. I don’t see where the Damascene dichotomizes the Spirit’s manifestation in creation from his Being, because, simply put (no pun intended), the Spirit’s manifestation in creation is part and parcel of His Nature. Nature and purpose are one in the Godhead.

This notion of distinction in simplicity is evident not just in the Oriental Fathers, but also the Eastern Fathers such as Basil and the Cappadocians.

In any case, I do feel this topic merits further discussion. I will close by repeating that I will be giving quotes of the Eastern/Oriental patristic belief that the Son has a participation in the Procession itself by this weekend. But not only that, I see it will also be necessary to demonstrate from these same Fathers a belief in the Godhead as simple, i.e., that Nature and purpose/action are one in the Godhead.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Thank you for the link. I am very interested in your viewpoint.

When St. John’s writings are read in the original Greek language it is clear that he does deny that the “being” of the Holy Spirit comes from or through the Son. In fact, the idea that the “being” of the Holy Spirit comes from the Son is precisely what St. John is arguing against.

Clearly we read the same Fathers (St. John Damascene, St. Maximos, the Cappadocians, St. Clement, et al.), but we understand them in a completely different way.

Marduk, although it is unlikely that we will ever agree on the doctrine of the procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit or His progression (proienai), I pray for you as a brother nonetheless.

May God bless you,
Todd

 

[Apotheoun]

. . . There is no problem in St. John to distinguish Essence and Energy, yet assert God’s actions flow from his Essence or Nature, and are not to be separated…God is simple- what He wills by His very Nature IS and manifests itself accordingly. I don’t see where the Damascene dichotomizes the Spirit’s manifestation in creation from his Being, because, simply put (no pun intended), the Spirit’s manifestation in creation is part and parcel of His Nature. Nature and purpose are one in the Godhead.

Your use of theological language is imprecise. According to the teaching of the Eastern Fathers, natures never act, only persons act. Thus, although the energies of the Trinity are called essential energies, in that they are the manifestation of divine power, it is not the divine essence or nature, but rather, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who act, and that is why the energies are also called enhypostatic. Now bearing in mind what I have already said, the distinction – without a separation, for there can be no dichotomies in God – between the divine essence and the divine energy is of course an ineffable mystery that transcends human comprehension, but in spite of the transcendent nature of this mystery, the Fathers are unanimous in saying – as I have already pointed out – that it is the three divine persons who act, and by acting they energize the divine powers and bestow them upon mankind as a gift of uncreated grace.

 

[mardukm]

When St. John’s writings are read in the original Greek language it is clear that he does deny that the “being” of the Holy Spirit comes from or through the Son. In fact, the idea that the “being” of the Holy Spirit comes from the Son is precisely what St. John is arguing against.

You understand of course that during this exact timeframe, there was a heresy asserting that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son? Thus, one can understand the purpose of such statements - they only intend to combat that heresy. We should understand that context, and not interpret them too far.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Apotheoun]

You understand of course that during this exact timeframe, there was a heresy asserting that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son? Thus, one can understand the purpose of such statements - they only intend to combat that heresy. We should understand that context, and not interpret them too far.

Blessings,
Marduk

The “being,” or better hypostasis, of the Spirit is not created, because the Father alone, who is the sole font of divinity, gives the Spirit His eternal existence through procession (ekporeusis). St. John holds strictly to the monarchy of the Father, and so he rejects any notion that would make the Son a cause (aitia) or principle (arche) in the existential procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit. In other words, according to St. John, the Spirit is manifest through the Son, but He does not take His hypostatic existence from Him.

 

[East_and_West]

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.

Todd. You really need to get over this whole distate for the Church of the west thing and this “Western Christians just aren’t smart enought to get it” kick. Look buddy, the filioque was defined in council and is an infallible doctrine of the Church. It is supported, as Ghosty has shown over and over again, by both Western and Eastern fathers. Furthermore, Ghosty has clearly illustrated how it can be interprated in an orthodox manner. I am glad you are Catholic. I really am. But if you believe that the west is so far into error, why do you remain in communion with her? I don’t want you to leave. I don’t recomend it. But, for goodness sake, if you are gonna be Catholic, believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[yeshua]

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?

God bless,

Rony

Peace Rony,

I must have missed this post, allow me some time to further read up on this. In the mean time, I would appreciate your thoughts/criticisms of my ramblings on the document you asked me to look through. Perhaps we should move that discussion to PM?

I am so very hesitant to say what represents the Maronite formulation, for my people more than any seem to have the most varying opinions in regards to our theology and spirituality! Let me make some inquiries, but I will completely lay down my bias and say I do not consult (for the most part) diaspora clergy in regard to these matters, though perhaps I will for consistency.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[yeshua]

Todd. You really need to get over this whole distate for the Church of the west thing and this “Western Christians just aren’t smart enought to get it” kick. Look buddy, the filioque was defined in council and is an infallible doctrine of the Church. It is supported, as Ghosty has shown over and over again, by both Western and Eastern fathers. Furthermore, Ghosty has clearly illustrated how it can be interprated in an orthodox manner. I am glad you are Catholic. I really am. But if you believe that the west is so far into error, why do you remain in communion with her? I don’t want you to leave. I don’t recomend it.** But, for goodness sake, if you are gonna be Catholic, believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. **

I believe it is sub-forum policy to not judge or call to question the Catholicism of another poster/tradition…simply a charitable reminder.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[East_and_West]

I believe it is sub-forum policy to not judge or call to question the Catholicism of another poster/tradition…simply a charitable reminder.

Peace and God Bless!

And I did no such thing. If you would read my post above, you will notice that I took every care to acknowledge that Todd is a Catholic. I said that I was glad he is a Catholic and that I don’t want him to leave. The only suggestion I offered him was that if he is going to remain a Catholic (which i certainly hope he does) that he should profess all the teachings of the Catholic faith. Not once did I deny his membership in the Catholic Church. Not once did I suggest he leave. Not once did I call him a heretic. Please refrain from suggesting that I have broken the forum rules when I have not. That sir, is slander.
Many Blessings

 

[yeshua]

And I did no such thing. If you would read my post above, you will notice that I took every care to acknowledge that Todd is a Catholic. I said that I was glad he is a Catholic and that I don’t want him to leave. The only suggestion I offered him was that if he is going to remain a Catholic (which i certainly hope he does) that he should profess all the teachings of the Catholic faith. Not once did I deny his membership in the Catholic Church. Not once did I suggest he leave. Not once did I call him a heretic. Please refrain from suggesting that I have broken the forum rules when I have not. That sir, is slander.
Many Blessings

We have had this disagreement before, I will not debate with you, and I do hope you believe I was not being slanderous.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[East_and_West]

We have had this disagreement before, I will not debate with you, and I do hope you believe I was not being slanderous.

Peace and God Bless.

Agreed. Let’s not discuss this issue further on this thread so that moderators do not have to spend precious time on this matter.

 

[ronyodish]

Peace Rony,

I must have missed this post, allow me some time to further read up on this. In the mean time, I would appreciate your thoughts/criticisms of my ramblings on the document you asked me to look through. Perhaps we should move that discussion to PM?

I am so very hesitant to say what represents the Maronite formulation, for my people more than any seem to have the most varying opinions in regards to our theology and spirituality! Let me make some inquiries, but I will completely lay down my bias and say I do not consult (for the most part) diaspora clergy in regard to these matters, though perhaps I will for consistency.

Peace and God Bless!

Peace Yeshua!

I think we should continue publicly so that others can have the benefit of benefiting from the discussion, but if you really want to go to PM, we can do that, no problem.

I will, God willing, offer some further comments on Friday or Saturday, specifically addressing your comments. In the mean time, let me just say that I have no major disagreements with the comments you’ve given on the book link that I gave you.

The Antiochenes or West Syriacs were in the Eastern outskirts of the Roman/Byzantine empire, and since the Nicene/Constantinopolitan Creed was the Creed of the Roman empire, then it is perfectly understandable that any additions to the Creed would be looked at with suspicion. I can understand why the Antiochene Maronites would centuries later have an adverse reaction to the inclusion of the Filioque to the Creed.

The East Syriacs (Chaldeans, Assyrians, Persians, Indians, etc.) were outside of the Roman empire, to the East. When the first official Synod of the Church of the East, the Synod of Mar Isaac, took place in 410, they desired to bring the CotE in harmony with the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils of the Roman empire (since at that time, they were still in full communion with them), but the Canons and the Creeds were not simply assumed.

The Canons were adjusted to meet the needs of the Church, and the Creed was altered on the basis of a local Persian Creed. Therefore, this Creed at 410, which is in Aramaic not Greek, included the “and the Son” clause, but it did not include the Aramaic word for “procession”. It simply said: “And we confess the living and holy Spirit, the living Paraclete who (is) from the Father and the Son” (translation by Sebastian Brock). There is no mention of “napeq”, the Aramaic word for “proceeds”, but the word “min” or “men” which means “from” is used.

I can see where Philoxenus might have gotten his explanation in that last paragraph of the section of the book. It is possible that the 410 Synod had something to do with his explanation, I’m not sure yet. I can continue to explore this and the rest of your comments on Friday or Saturday.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Ghosty]

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.

You have made this claim many, many times, yet never once backed it up with any kind of documentation. Show us, from the Early Eastern Fathers, where this clear distinction was made. This is critical for any discussion on the matter, because if it is really the case that the West deviated, and the Byzantine tradition has always maintained this distinction, then it is imperitive that your fellow Catholics are exposed to the true Apostolic teaching.

As it stands there has been no evidence presented for such a distinction other than a questionable interpretation of St. John of Damascus’ writings, and Medieval Byzantine theological tracts. Please show us something from the Early Church so we can see where the Latins and the Orientals went wrong.

Specifically I’m asking for proof that “ekporousis” (which is comparable to the “from the Source” aspect of the Father’s Monarchy in the West) refers to the hypostasis, while “proinai” does not (a point I’ve never seen you prove, despite frequent claims that this is the case). Show us where in the Early Church it was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son in any way other than Hypostatically.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Allyson]

As it stands there has been no evidence presented for such a distinction other than a questionable interpretation of St. John of Damascus’ writings, and Medieval Byzantine theological tracts. Please show us something from the Early Church so we can see where the Latins and the Orientals went wrong.

Just wondering, but where exactly does Todd mention the Orientals. I have checked the last three pages of the thread, and he does not name them in his critiques. He only refers to the West (i.e. Latin).

God Bless,
R.

 

[Ghosty]

Just wondering, but where exactly does Todd mention the Orientals. I have checked the last three pages of the thread, and he does not name them in his critiques. He only refers to the West (i.e. Latin).

God Bless,
R.

Todd didn’t, but Mardukm did. The Oriental Churches, despite being just as ancient as the Latins and Byzantines, don’t have the theological approach that Todd is asserting is the most ancient belief. In asserting that this Byzantine approach (I would add that no evidence prior to the Middle Ages has been offered for this approach, BTW, except mere assertions that “proinai” doesn’t speak of the Hypostasis/Person of the Holy Spirit, assertions that have never been substantiated in any thread I’ve participated in on this matter over the last few years) he is denying the Apostolicity of not just the Latins, but all non-Byzantine Apostolic theological traditions; not only did the Latins break with the original belief, but the Oriental Orthodox who split prior to the Latin “shift” towards “heterodoxy” are also implicitely implicated since they share a similar (though not identical) approach with the Latins despite breaking prior to the Latin developments. It’s a pretty broad claim, and one that requires some significant evidence, or at least some evidence at this point; citing the Tome of Blacharnae and the Triads of St. Gregory Palamas aren’t going to cut it.

So, in my request, I mentioned the Oriental traditions as well since they are included (whether intentional or not) in Todd’s accusations against the Latins.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

In hindsight it might have been inappropriate to say “vehemently,” but since time after time the clause was asked to be put to practice, the monasteries (and thus laity, considering the monastic tradition of the Maronites) did not practice it. I used “vehemently” because of this historical stubbornness.

I would *assume *that this stubbornness in not adapting the clause meant that no matter how insistent, the clergy were not going change. What I stray from concluding (in many respects thanks to your insights on the matter ) is whether the Maronites were resistant to the clause simply because it was theologically innappropriate from their perspective, or whether they simply didn’t want it because it was not apart of their normal practice (though saw the clause as theologically acceptable). Records from that time period could answer this dire question of mine, but sadley none survive.

Interestingly enough, the Maronite presence at Florence supported the Council, though the community in Lebanon would not practice with it. Whether or not there existed a particular dialogue, or whether the Council’s decrees did not matter to the Maronites, is left to history. What is chronicled is Papal decree consistently asking/commanding/enforcing for the clause to be practiced, and Maronites not practicing up until its enforcement by the Papal delegation of Jesuits.

Peace and God Bless!

Thanks for the clarification!

I still hold that the Pope was unduly rough on the Maronites in this regard, especially since the same was NOT done to the Byzantine Churches that entered Communion with the Latin Church (and they were the ones who had been arguing over the filioque for centuries).

Obviously the matter wasn’t considered worth pushing on the Ukrainians, or the Melkites, or the other Byzantine groups, but the Maronites got the rough end of the Jesuit stick. I don’t know if that’s because of a special targeting of the Maronites, or because of the involvement of the Jesuits, as similar incidents happened under Jesuit “care” in India (leading to a schism when the locals wouldn’t bend to Jesuit/Portuguese demands).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Allyson]

Todd didn’t, but Mardukm did. The Oriental Churches, despite being just as ancient as the Latins and Byzantines, don’t have the theological approach that Todd is asserting is the most ancient belief. In asserting that this Byzantine approach (I would add that no evidence prior to the Middle Ages has been offered for this approach, BTW, except mere assertions that “proinai” doesn’t speak of the Hypostasis/Person of the Holy Spirit, assertions that have never been substantiated in any thread I’ve participated in on this matter over the last few years) he is denying the Apostolicity of not just the Latins, but all non-Byzantine Apostolic theological traditions; not only did the Latins break with the original belief, but the Oriental Orthodox who split prior to the Latin “shift” towards “heterodoxy” are also implicitely implicated since they share a similar (though not identical) approach with the Latins despite breaking prior to the Latin developments. It’s a pretty broad claim, and one that requires some significant evidence, or at least some evidence at this point; citing the Tome of Blacharnae and the Triads of St. Gregory Palamas aren’t going to cut it.

So, in my request, I mentioned the Oriental traditions as well since they are included (whether intentional or not) in Todd’s accusations against the Latins.

Peace and God bless!

St. Gregory Palamas drew on St. Maximos and he drew on St. John Damascene, and if the other two men have been quoted… * …Then it seems that what you lack is not proof, but an agreement on the interpretation of the Fathers and how they were used in the respective traditions.

Would you say then that there is a Medieval Byzantine innovation in Tome of Blacharnae and the Triads of St. Gregory Palamas? (And if so, do you find such an innovation to be in error?) That would seem to the the other side of the coin you have described.

God Bless and Good Night,
R.*