And the Son

[jimmy]

Shlomo Yeshua!

I would like to hear your comments on the understanding of the West Syriac Philoxenus of Mabbog on the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Specifically:

If you have time, can you check this section of a book on the Procession of the Holy Ghost. The section is only 2 and half pages. I’m specifically interested in your understanding on the last paragraph of the section that starts with “There is no need…”

God bless,

Rony

Just a side note Rony. You can get some of Philoxenus’ writings in print if you go to lulu.com. I have also seen Isaac of Nineveh, Narsai, and a few other Syrian saints. Most of the Narsai is Syriac but I noticed that there are some liturgical homilies that are in translation.

 

[Apotheoun]

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,

It is evident, as has been the case for many years now, that we will not agree on this topic. The Greek word ekporeusis means procession of origin (i.e., of existence) from a source, and the term can even be translated as “origination” or as “taking origin from” a source, while the Greek term proienai means “movement of an existing thing.” Proienai does not concern the existence or the existential origin of the Spirit, and the term has never been used by any of the Greek Fathers to mean what you say it means, because they never confused the term with ekporeusis with proienai as you do.

That said, our disagreement has been, and continues to be, about the ongoing Western failure to distinguish between ekporeusis, which alone concerns the Spirit’s hypostatic procession of origin from the Father, and proienai, which concerns His manifestation – as already existent – from the Father through the Son; and until you take into account the Greek language, which is the language of the divinely inspired New Testament, and the writings of the vast majority of the Greek Fathers and theologians on this topic, it follows that any agreement between the two of us will be impossible.

May God bless you,
Todd

P.S. - Ghosty, I have never said that the medieval (or modern) Latins are heretics in connection with the procession of the Spirit, because I do not accept the later Latin synods as ecumenical, and so the most that can be said is that the Scholastic teaching endorsed at those particular synods on the filioque is erroneous. Anything that confuses the Spirit’s hypostatic procession of origin, which is from the Father alone, with His manifestation as already existent in the divine energy from the Father through the Son is going to be unacceptable to de-Latinized Eastern Catholics, and also to the Eastern Orthodox Churches that Rome wants to restore to full communion.

 

[Apotheoun]

. . . he is denying the Apostolicity of not just the Latins, but all non-Byzantine Apostolic theological traditions . . .

I have not denied the Apostolicity of either the Latin or the Oriental Churches; instead, I have simply said that all traditions, Eastern, Western, and Oriental, must take into account the teaching of the inspired Greek New Testament, by translating the terms used by our Lord – and later by the Greek Fathers – correctly, and make a real distinction between the Spirit’s procession (ekporeusis) of origin as person, which is from the Father alone, and His manfestation (pephenos) or progression (proienai) from the Father through the Son as already existent and only personally (enhypostatically) manifest.

Clearly, the receptor languages into which the Greek scriptures and tradition have been translated must be faithful to the original meaning of the words used in order to avoid any theological confusion or corruption. Thus, whether Latins and Orientals like it or not, God, for whatever reason, chose to inspire the human authors of sacred scripture in the Greek language, and so that language has a normative value in theology.

 

[East_and_West]

P.S. - Ghosty, I have never said that the medieval (or modern) Latins are heretics in connection with the procession of the Spirit, because I do not accept the later Latin synods as ecumenical.

Such a disnegenuous position. We do believe they are ecumenical and, in fact the Church has proclaimed an anathema on anyone who rejects the teachings of these councils. This fence riding with regard to Latins is just getting silly. If we are in error, then those things we profess as the true faith are down right heretical. If we are not in heresy, then those things we proclaim are the truth and, being that they are the truth, you must assent to them as well.

 

[Diak]

Such a disnegenuous position. We do believe they are ecumenical and, in fact the Church has proclaimed an anathema on anyone who rejects the teachings of these councils. This fence riding with regard to Latins is just getting silly. If we are in error, then those things we profess as the true faith are down right heretical. If we are not in heresy, then those things we proclaim are the truth and, being that they are the truth, you must assent to them as well.

Once again I am going to have to request you provide a specific document of anthemitizations by Rome - who was anathemitized, when, and for what. Documents, not fleeting and specious references.

The Union of Brest did not mention even once Florence or Lyon; yet it was blessed by the Pope of the time of the Union and has been blessed by other Popes since him.

Speaking of accepting Councils, does East and West accept Vatican II and all of the Magisterial proclamations, actions and documents since then?
FDRLB

 

[East_and_West]

Once again I am going to have to request you provide a specific document of anthemitizations by Rome - who was anathemitized, when, and for what. Documents, not fleeting and specious references.

I thought that this was common knowledge. I will get the quotes in a moment.

The Union of Brest did not mention even once Florence or Lyon; yet it was blessed by the Pope of the time of the Union and has been blessed by other Popes since him.

Irrelavent. If you are Catholic you should accept all the ecumenical councils and not just the ones you like. No need to look for loop holes so that you can deviate from the Catholic faith.

Speaking of accepting Councils, does East and West accept Vatican II and all of the Magisterial proclamations, actions and documents since then?
FDRLB

Yes. Not one document or councils says that it is ok for anyone to deny any article of the Catholic faith.

 

[East_and_West]

Second Council of Lyons:
“wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.”

 

[East_and_West]

Second Council of Lyons:
“wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.”
Condemn and rerpove. Sounds like anathema to me.

 

[East_and_West]

This sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of [Page 16] Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,–considering the magnitude of the matters to be treated of, especially of those comprised under the two heads, of the extirpating of heresies, and the reforming of manners, for the sake of which chiefly It is assembled, and recognizing with the apostles, that Its wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the spirits of wickedness in the high places, exhorts, with the same apostle, all and each above all things, to be strengthened in the Lord, and in the might of his power, in all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith they may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one, and to take the helmet of salvation, with the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. Wherefore, that this its pious solicitude may begin and proceed by the grace of God, It ordains and decrees that, before all other things, a confession of faith is to be set forth; following herein the examples of the Fathers, who have been wont, in the most sacred coucils, at the beginning of the Actions thereof, to oppose this shield against heresies; and with this alone, at times, have they drawn the unbelieving to the faith, overthrown heretics, and confirmed the faithful. For which cause, this council has thought good, that the Symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church makes use of,–as being that principle wherein all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, and that firm and alone foundation against which the gates of hell shall never prevail,–be expressed in the very same words in which it is read in all the churches. Which Symbol is as follows: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made: who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from the heavens, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of [Page 17] the Virgin Mary, and was made man: crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered and was buried; and he rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; and he ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father ; and again he will come with glory to judge the living and the dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end: and in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is adored and glorified; who spoke by the prophets and one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[Diak]

Irrelavent. If you are Catholic you should accept all the ecumenical councils and not just the ones you like. No need to look for loop holes so that you can deviate from the Catholic faith.

No - not irrelevant at all. We are bound by the statement of Communion between our Church and Rome. If these Councils were absolutely essential to the Communion, they would most certainly have been requested by Rome for direct and unequivocal inclusion. And when did I say I rejected any Council specifically and definitively?

We are not Latin Catholics nor are looking for any “loopholes”; we simply want to practice our faith as guaranteed by the Union we entered into with Rome in good faith. And the position of Rome especially since the last Council has been most supportive of us to do so.

Thank you for the quote. But this is not a specific anathemitization of any specific Eastern Christians but rather a general one.

Here is the key phrase:
**or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one **

Which is quite compatible with the statement of faith from the Union of Brest:

Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

No need to look for loop holes so that you can deviate from the Catholic faith.

Please be very specific with what you are accusing me of, rather than oblique references as this is most serious. What loopholes?

Openly questioning the faith of another, more specifically clergy, is very serious and quite disrespectful. Are you accusing me of deviating from the Catholic faith? Either provide documentation or an apology. If you do not clarify I will indeed be reporting this post.
FDRLB

 

[East_and_West]

Diak, you believe that just because the Union of Brest does not specificially mention Florence or other councils, you are not boud to accept them. That to me sounds like a loop hole. It sounds as if you are saying that because the Union does not specifically mention an article of the Catholic faith, you are free to deny Catholic dogma. Don’t you see how ridiculous this is?

 

[Diak]

Originally Posted by Diak
Speaking of accepting Councils, does East and West accept Vatican II and all of the Magisterial proclamations, actions and documents since then?
FDRLB

Yes. Not one document or councils says that it is ok for anyone to deny any article of the Catholic faith.

Thanks for that clarification. On Byzcath you specifically declared you accepted everything up to Vatican II.
FDRLB

 

[East_and_West]

Diak, The key phrase is:
Second Council of Lyons:
"wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, " And yes this is a general condemnation not directed any particular Church. But it is still a condemnation of anyone who denies the truth of the dogma of the Filioque.

 

[East_and_West]

Thanks for that clarification. On Byzcath you specifically declared you accepted everything up to Vatican II.
FDRLB

I was deleted because I believe that all Catholics are required to asssent to all the teachings of the Catholic Church. Not just the one’s they like.

 

[East_and_West]

Please be very specific with what you are accusing me of, rather than oblique references as this is most serious. What loopholes?

Openly questioning the faith of another, more specifically clergy, is very serious and quite disrespectful. Are you accusing me of deviating from the Catholic faith? Either provide documentation or an apology. If you do not clarify I will indeed be reporting this post.
FDRLB

I am not accusing you of not being Catholic. I acknowledge that you are completely in communion with the Church. However, it appears that you are looking for loopholes in the Union of Brest, so that people can be free to deny Catholic teachings such as the filioque.

 

[Diak]

Diak, you believe that just because the Union of Brest does not specificially mention Florence or other councils, you are not boud to accept them. That to me sounds like a loop hole. It sounds as if you are saying that because the Union does not specifically mention an article of the Catholic faith, you are free to deny Catholic dogma. Don’t you see how ridiculous this is?

What is ridiculous and especially uncharitable is the questioning of faith of another during Lent. Pointing out a fact (the ommission from the articles of the Union of references to Lyon or Florence) should not be an occasion of judging the faith of another nor projecting what you think I believe.

Please clarify when I said I rejected Florence or any other council; and please clarify specifically your apparent accusations of my “deviating from the Catholic faith”. If not retract these or I will report.

The statement of Communion with my particular church and Rome has addressed the issue of the * filioque* quite adequately, as has both the direction from Rome as well as our own hierarchy since the Second Vatican Council.
FDRLB

 

[East_and_West]

What is ridiculous and especially uncharitable is the questioning of faith of another during Lent. Pointing out a fact (the ommission from the articles of the Union of references to Lyon or Florence) should not be an occasion of judging the faith of another nor projecting what you think I believe.

The context you bring it up in sounds as if you believe that one can deny the truth of the filioque simply because these councils are not in the Union. When you consider the previous statement i made to Todd and you response to that statements, it appears that you agree with him and he does in fact reject the procession fo the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

Please clarify when I said I rejected Florence or any other council; and please clarify specifically your apparent accusations of my “deviating from the Catholic faith”. If not retract these or I will report.

You made a point to emphasize that neither of these councils is mentioned in the Union documents. In the context of the discussion, it certainly appears that you are suggesting that and Eastern Catholic need not accept these councils. I will reject my explicit accusation and state that it appears this way. Does this satisfy your demand?

The statement of Communion with my particular church and Rome has addressed the issue of the * filioque* quite adequately, as has both the direction from Rome as well as our own hierarchy since the Second Vatican Council.
FDRLB

Yup!. You don’t have to have it in the creed. But you still have to believe in it.

 

[Ghosty]

Allyson:

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.
*

A later theologian drawing on previous theologians doesn’t mean that the later theologian’s view can be found in the older ones. The Early Fathers have not been quoted with regards to the Holy Spirit proceeding other than Hypostatically from the Son, and that is the basis of my request.

What has been quoted is that St. John of Damascus said that the Holy Spirit is of the Son but not from the Son. He says that the Holy Spirit is imparted to us by the Son, and does not make any distinction between Hypostasis and “Energy” of the Holy Spirit, which is the distinction I’m looking for to be supported.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Apotheoun:

I have not denied the Apostolicity of either the Latin or the Oriental Churches

You’ve called the Latin teaching heretical before. Do you retract that view? You certainly can’t dodge it by saying “Florence wasn’t an Ecumenical Council”, because it is clear that the teaching of the Latin Church is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Greek word ekporeusis means procession of origin (i.e., of existence) from a source, and the term can even be translated as “origination” or as “taking origin from” a source, while the Greek term proienai means “movement of an existing thing.” Proienai does not concern the existence or the existential origin of the Spirit, and the term has never been used by any of the Greek Fathers to mean what you say it means, because they never confused the term with ekporeusis with proienai as you do.

You are adding to the meaning of “proienai” with the term “already existing”; proienai says nothing about pre-existence, but only of movement. Ekporousis certainly means “origin from a source”, and that can only be applied to the Father, but “proienai” doesn’t automatically imply “first from the Father, and then from the Son”.

None of that answers what I’m asking of you, however, which is to provide some evidence that the Person of the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son eternally. None of the Fathers I’ve read speak of such a distinction, and you’ve never shown any evidence that they did. I’m still waiting for any citation showing that the Holy Spirit proceeds otherwise than Personally from the Son; this is not a question about Source (ekporousis), so let’s not divert the issue unless you can show that ONLY ekporousis can mean Personally.

Certainly St. Gregory of Nyssa made no such distinction in his work “Not Three Gods”, which I know we’ve discussed before but I’ll post here for the benefit of others:

If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer;—that 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;—by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

No distinction akin to Todd’s is being made here. Indeed, St. Gregory of Nyssa is speaking ONLY of Personal origin, and how origin alone distinguishes the Three Divine Persons. In speaking of Personal origin, he interposes the Son between the Father and Holy Spirit, saying that the Holy Spirit is by the Son.

This is just one example of many that can be made, and Mardukm likely will make them, that there is no distinction between the Personal origin of the Holy Spirit, and His procession from the Son; the only distinction so far that can be attested to is that of origin from a Source, which the Latin Church upholds as being only from the Father.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

East and West:

The context you bring it up in sounds as if you believe that one can deny the truth of the filioque simply because these councils are not in the Union. When you consider the previous statement i made to Todd and you response to that statements, it appears that you agree with him and he does in fact reject the procession fo the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

Actually, Diak cited the Union of Brest which does address the Filioque, and favorably I might add (or, rather, is favorable to the theology of the Filioque, if not its addition to the Creed). The Union of Brest actually contradicts Todd’s assertion that the Holy Spirit’s origin is not “through the Son”, so I don’t see how you can conclude that Diak is somehow standing against the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter.

Not everyone who raises questions regarding the exact status of those later Councils is doing so as a kind of loop-hole for getting out of what the Church teaches. In this case, no reference to those Councils is needed for a proper understanding of the Catholic Faith. If, for example, the text of the Union of Brest is upheld then the Council of Florence is a non-issue.

Peace and God bless!