And the Son

[East_and_West]

East and West:

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!

If this is the case and I am wrong, I appologize. It just didn’t sound good in the context of the conversation. I will read the Union of Brest this evening. Does anyone have a link where I can find it?

 

[Allyson]

If this is the case and I am wrong, I appologize. It just didn’t sound good in the context of the conversation. I will read the Union of Brest this evening. Does anyone have a link where I can find it?

There is a translation on EWTN’s document Library.

And now a response to everything else. I went on longer than expected.

Thank you Diak for quoting this earlier:

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.

This is how I read it: it is not to be added to the creed, nor is it expected that the theology of the filioque be espoused by those Eastern Rites signing the document.

Why do I hold the second part of my statement? Because the disagreement is acknowledged as something upon which an agreement WILL NOT BE REACHED, evidence by: “for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another”. Not only is it requested that the word filioque not be added to liturgical prayer, but the explicit reason is that the creed is “that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors.” (!!! - obviously they read the Greek Fathers differently than did the fathers of the post-Schism council on the West).

This is evidence that the understanding of Apostolic tradition is different in the East, and that Rome, in signing the treaty has acknowledged this. Such an acknowledgment indicates freedom to speak and believe another formula for understanding the Trinity for the Eastern signers of the Union. They are not condemned by the councils of Florence, Lyons, ect. (see below), nor are they required to use the formula named in the anathema’s. One could say that there is an implicit acknowledgment that

Lyons quoted in Post 81 and 82, condemn those who hold two principles in the Godhead, which the Eastern Theology of the Trinity does not, and moreover seeks to avoid through the non-use of the filioque. In the Greek language, the use of “and the Son” in reference to procession brings about such an error (I am sure this has been discussed before). In Latin, maybe not so much a problem, although a great Latin user Augustine, in his Retractions pulls away from the filioque formula - sorry don’t own the book, borrowed it from the library one, so I have read the passage.

The Trent quote with the symbol of faith is not an issue, especially since the formulation of new creeds was ended around a millennium earlier. The Eastern Rites are not required to adopt it as “The Creed.” It is not an unusual practice to give symbol of fait at a synod/council. Why not use the symbol of faith from Vatican I? (jk)

The point is, that what the filioque express in Latin theology may not be problematic, but it is not the case that the Union of Brest holds the East to the use of the theology behind it, nor even that they have to believe it (again - no agreement was reached - says so in TEXT). Personally, I’d rather say that I believe in the Trinity and this is how I formulate that belief, not I have this formula of belief that I believe in. <<split hairs!>>

Good Night and God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

AAAHHH, part of the color did not work. I meant to have coordinating green from primary text to my analysis!

 

[Ghosty]

Why do I hold the second part of my statement? Because the disagreement is acknowledged as something upon which an agreement WILL NOT BE REACHED, evidence by: “for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another”. Not only is it requested that the word filioque not be added to liturgical prayer, but the explicit reason is that the creed is “that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors.” (!!! - obviously they read the Greek Fathers differently than did the fathers of the post-Schism council on the West).

Actually, the Union of Brest explicitly sets forth the theology of the Filioque:

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.

That is the filioque theology precisely, namely that the Holy Spirit’s origin is from the Father and through the Son. The Union of Brest is not setting up a contrary position to that of the Latins, but saying that the Creed needs not be modified.

They are not reading the Greek Fathers differently than the Latins are if they are saying the exact same teaching as the Latins.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Apotheoun]

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.

If the word “proceeds” is meant to convey the meaning of the Greek word proienai it is – prescinding from the non-sense about the Father and the Son being “one origin” – acceptable, but it is heretical if it is meant to convey the procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father alone. The orthodoxy of the per filium is restricted to the use of the term proienai in the Greek.

 

[Ghosty]

If the word “proceeds” is meant to convey the meaning of the Greek word proienai it is – prescinding from the non-sense about the Father and the Son being “one origin” – acceptable, but it is heretical if it is meant to convey the procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father alone. The orthodoxy of the per filium is restricted to the use of the term proienai in the Greek.

Well, the Union speaks of the origin of the Holy Spirit, something that you’ve denied can be applied to the Son even per filium. There is no sense in which “origin” has ever meant something other than origin.

Once again you are calling your fellow Catholics heretical, since the belief that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father through the Son is the established belief of the Latin Church, and is attested to by the Union of Brest (which, if I’m not mistaken about your “home Church”, is the foundational document of your Church’s reunion with the Catholic Communion).

BTW, are we once again going to be left in the dark regarding proof that proienai can’t apply to the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit, or that ekporousis alone applies to this?

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Well, the Union speaks of the origin of the Holy Spirit, something that you’ve denied can be applied to the Son even per filium. There is no sense in which “origin” has ever meant something other than origin.

Once again you are calling your fellow Catholics heretical, since the belief that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father through the Son is the established belief of the Latin Church, and is attested to by the Union of Brest (which, if I’m not mistaken about your “home Church”, is the foundational document of your Church’s reunion with the Catholic Communion).

BTW, are we once again going to be left in the dark regarding proof that proienai can’t apply to the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit, or that ekporousis alone applies to this?

Peace and God bless!

The Union does not speak of the Son as the source of the Trinity. The Catholic Church speaks of one source of the Spirit, the Father. The Son happens to be a part of it in some fashion but the Father is the source.

 

[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.”

JIMMY SEE ABOVE!!!

 

[Apotheoun]

Well, the Union speaks of the origin of the Holy Spirit, something that you’ve denied can be applied to the Son even per filium. There is no sense in which “origin” has ever meant something other than origin.

Yes, that is why I said that the Union of Brest is acceptable, but only if it does not refer to the Spirit’s origin to the Father and the Son conjointly. The Father alone is the origin of Godhead, and this is a personal characteristic of His hypostasis, which means that it cannot be shared with either the Son or the Spirit without falling into Sabellian Modalism.

 

[East_and_West]

The Father alone is the origin of Godhead, and this is a personal characteristic of His hypostasis, which means that it cannot be shared with either the Son or the Spirit without falling into Sabellian Modalism.

WRONG. Bad theology. It would fall into Modalism, only if there was no other distinction between the Father and the Son. But there is still the distinction found in the fact that the Son is the one who is begotten of the Father and the Father is the one who begetts the son. Let’s not use invalid arguements to support our positions please. To do so is to engage in sophistry (btw, can everyone tell that “sophistry” is my new favorite word? Its just because I see so much of it on the net).

 

[Apotheoun]

. . . Once again you are calling your fellow Catholics heretical, since the belief that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father through the Son is the established belief of the Latin Church, and is attested to by the Union of Brest (which, if I’m not mistaken about your “home Church”, is the foundational document of your Church’s reunion with the Catholic Communion).

I have called no one a heretic, because I do not accept the teachings espoused by the later fourteen Latin councils as ecumenical.

That said, I do not believe that the double procession of the Spirit is a dogma; instead, it is merely a theologoumena of the medieval Western Church. But if a person where to say that the Son is the origin of the Spirit’s hypostasis, a proposition that is false in the extreme, and held that this erroneous notion was in fact a dogmatic truth, then that person would be – according to the tradition of the Eastern Church – a heretic, because that proposition has been condemned in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy as heresy. Now, on the other hand, if a Western Christian held that the Spirit is simply made manifest (proienai or pephenos) – both temporally and eternally – from the Father through the Son, while taking His origin (ekporeusis) solely from the Father, if follows that this person would be completely orthodox in his profession of the faith.

God bless,
Todd

 

[Apotheoun]

WRONG. Bad theology. It would fall into Modalism, only if there was no other distinction between the Father and the Son. But there is still the distinction found in the fact that the Son is the one who is begotten of the Father and the Father is the one who begetts the son. Let’s not use invalid arguements to support our positions please. To do so is to engage in sophistry (btw, can everyone tell that “sophistry” is my new favorite word? Its just because I see so much of it on the net).

Thanks for your opinion on the issue. Nevertheless, in the doctrinal tradition of the Byzantine East the persons of the Trinity are only distinct through their hypostatic properties, which cannot in any way be shared among them; while that which is common to them is founded upon the unity of the divine essence. Taking into account what I have said, hypostatic properties are absolutely unique to a single person, while essential properties are absolutely common to all three persons at the same time. Thus, two persons cannot share a common property without the third person also possessing that same property.

 

[Apotheoun]

BTW, are we once again going to be left in the dark regarding proof that proienai can’t apply to the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit, or that ekporousis alone applies to this?

Clearly you should complain to the Vatican then, because in its clarification it accepts that ekporeusis and proienai have completely different meanings; the former concerns a procession of origin from a source, while the latter concerns only the progression or movement of something already existent.

 

[East_and_West]

Thanks for your opinion on the issue. Nevertheless, in the doctrinal tradition of the Byzantine East the persons of the Trinity are only distinct through their hypostatic properties, which cannot in any way be shared among them; while that which is common to them is founded upon the unity of the divine essence. In other words, hypostatic properties are absolutely unique to a single person, while essential properties are absolutely common to all three persons at the same time. Thus, two persons cannot share a common property without the third person also possessing this same property.

I guess I have more respect for byzantie theology than you do because your view would force one to accept the premise that Byzantines must reject reason. The fact that that one is begotten and the other is teh begetter distinguishes the Father and Son no matter what you say. One cannot be one’s own begetter. That would violate the law of noncontradiction. Thus, by being begotten, the Son is distinguished by the father. Q.E.D. Now, I completely respect Byzantine theology. I don’t believe one has to reject reason to be a Byzantine Catholic. Thus, I believe that the distinction of begetting and being begotten is enough to distinguish the Father and the Son for Byzantines. Funny how a Latin appreciates and respects the East more than you do.

 

[Apotheoun]

I guess I have more respect for byzantie theology than you do because your view would force one to accept the premise that Byzantines must reject reason. The fact that that one is begotten and the other is teh begetter distinguishes the Father and Son no matter what you say. One cannot be one’s own begetter. That would violate the law of noncontradiction. Thus, by being begotten, the Son is distinguished by the father. Q.E.D. Now, I completely respect Byzantine theology. I don’t believe one has to reject reason to be a Byzantine Catholic. Thus, I believe that the distinction of begetting and being begotten is enough to distinguish the Father and the Son for Byzantines. Funny how a Latin appreciates and respects the East more than you do.

Have you read any of my posts? Where have I said that the Father is not the begetter of the Son, or that the Son is not begotten of the Father?

Clearly, the Father is ingenerate, and ingeneracy is a hypostatic property unique to His person; while the Son is generated, and being begotten is a hypostatic characteristic proper only to His person. Thus, as I have already said, the Eastern Fathers believed that hypostatic properties are unique to a given person, which means that they cannot be shared with another person; while that which is common to the three persons in general is not properly a hypostatic characteristic, but is essential to the whole Godhead (i.e., it must be common to all three persons at the same time).

 

[jimmy]

I guess I have more respect for byzantie theology than you do because your view would force one to accept the premise that Byzantines must reject reason. The fact that that one is begotten and the other is teh begetter distinguishes the Father and Son no matter what you say. One cannot be one’s own begetter. That would violate the law of noncontradiction. Thus, by being begotten, the Son is distinguished by the father. Q.E.D. Now, I completely respect Byzantine theology. I don’t believe one has to reject reason to be a Byzantine Catholic. Thus, I believe that the distinction of begetting and being begotten is enough to distinguish the Father and the Son for Byzantines. Funny how a Latin appreciates and respects the East more than you do.

And just as the Byzantines lack reason, you lack faith in a single god since you are a ditheist. You have introduced a second source into the Trinity. The Greek fathers theology of the Trinity was based on the fact that the Father is the one source of the Trinity. The Father is the source of the Son and the source of the Spirit. It would take a lot of twisting to make them fit into a duel procession type of theology. You have also subordinated the Spirit since the Spirit is the only one who is not a source of the Trinity. The Son recieved all from the Father but the Spirit does not have all that the Father and the Son have? The Spirit is then a lower being that God.

 

[East_and_West]

And just as the Byzantines lack reason, you lack faith in a single god since you are a ditheist. You have introduced a second source into the Trinity. The Greek fathers theology of the Trinity was based on the fact that the Father is the one source of the Trinity. The Father is the source of the Son and the source of the Spirit. It would take a lot of twisting to make them fit into a duel procession type of theology. You have also subordinated the Spirit since the Spirit is the only one who is not a source of the Trinity. The Son recieved all from the Father but the Spirit does not have all that the Father and the Son have? The Spirit is then a lower being that God.

I don’t think that Byzantines lack reason. Sorry, I am the one who believes that Byzantine Christianity does not need do adopt the silly thinking described above because its above such nonsense.

1. Even if there were two sources in the Trinity, that would not invalidate monotheism because the members of the Trinity are still one in essence, undivided, possssing the same nature, existance, substance, etc.
2. No one is claiming that there are two sources in the Trinity. The Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as a single principle, not two different principles. That is why the phrase “from the Father, through the Son” is quite appropriate.
3. By Claiming that the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son makes the Holy Spirit lower than the Father and the Son because no divine person comes from him is also faulty reasoning. If that principle were true, the fact that the Son is generated by the Father makes him less than the Father and, yet, that would not fit anyone’s theology of the Trinity.
4. The Charge of ditheism is so ridiculous that its almost laughable, considering the fact that it is Eastern Theologians that claim that God is divided into essence and energies, a theology that immediately descends into ditheism.

 

[Allyson]

1. Even if there were two sources in the Trinity, that would not invalidate monotheism because the members of the Trinity are still one in essence, undivided, possssing the same nature,

If two principles would not invalidate monothesism, then why would the councils (Florence, Lyons, ect.) previously quoted in the thread so emphatically condemn holding two principles?

1. By Claiming that the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son makes the Holy Spirit lower than the Father and the Son because no divine person comes from him is also faulty reasoning. If that principle were true, the fact that the Son is generated by the Father makes him less than the Father and, yet, that would not fit anyone’s theology of the Trinity.

Okay, I was going to respond to this, but I am to tired right now to do a good job. Maybe another time if I remember. I wouldn’t be saying anything new.

1. The Charge of ditheism is so ridiculous that its almost laughable, considering the fact that it is Eastern Theologians that claim that God is divided into essence and energies, a theology that immediately descends into ditheism.

Eastern Theologians do not claim any division in God, please watch that your wording reflects what they actually. There is a distinction without separation between the essences and the energies. In the approximate words of one good friend of mine to the other good friend of mine who had just explained the theological reasoning of this position; “so it’s the distinction between who God is and what God does.” We know God through his acts (energeia which has a broader meaning that the Latin actus used to translate it). This is part of how we know who the Persons are; it is revealed to us what they each do, that the other two do not do. The essence, who God is, is the incomprehensible and unknowable being that God is.

I hope I did that justice, anyone on the Eastern Theology side is free to correct my description for clarity.

Some more linguistic thoughts another time.

R.

 

[Allyson]

Actually, the Union of Brest explicitly sets forth the theology of the Filioque:

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

I guess it all depends on what you mean by through. I still stand by my previous analysis. It has been a while since I read the document in whole, but I have never found that it restricts the use and propagation of the Eastern Theological position. Remember, they agreed to disagree about the filioque because of being stubborn.

God Bless,
R.

 

[ronyodish]

Yeshua, here are my further comments:

However, I find the book you refer to peculiar, specifically on the issue of where there is contradiction. The author clearly states two examples of Mor Philoxenus’ belief in the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father. Personally, I believe it is a tad of a scholarly stretch to claim that since the second account (De Triniate et Incarnatione) only implys that the Holy Ghost indeed does not proceed from the Father and the Son, that it does not deny that the procession from both is possible. And to be frank, I do not believe it is implied at all, but that Mor Philoxenus is clearly stating that the Holy Ghost is of the Being, which previously was blatantly correlated as the Father.

By saying that the “Father is Being only; the Son, Son of the Being, the Holy Ghost is from the Being”, it is clear why the great Maronite scholar Yusef Assemani denies that Mor Philoxenus was teaching a procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. It appears to me that in this account, procession is correlated with origin. If so, then this is orthodox teaching, that the Father is sole origin of the Holy Spirit. Note: I am assuming here that this second account is speaking of a “procession”. Looking closely, the words “procession” or “proceeds” does not show up in the actual quotes of Philoxenus. The only time it does show up is in the first account where it says “proceeds from the Father”.

I find the third account to be along the same lines of scholarly charity when it states that simply because there is no discussion regarding procession of the Holy Ghost other than the Holy Ghost is never the Father and never the Son, that the proceeding powers of both the Son and the Father are assumed for both. It is also much more clear to see that the first two accounts actually due support the third when the procession powers are not assumed, yet this denigrates the authors point.

I am seeing in this third account the contradiction that Assemani sees in Philoxenus, namely that if the Son being begotten is the only distinction from the Father as begetter, then this gives the Son everything the Father possesses, including the power to process, except the power of begetting. But if procession means origination as I concluded from the second account above, then we have a problem here, because now it would not be orthodox to say that the Son processes the Holy Spirit. This is why I agree with Assemani here that there is a contradiction in these two accounts of Philoxenus. Note: Again, in the actual quotes of this third account, the words “procession” or “proceeds” does not appear. It is merely assumed, and offcourse assumptions can be wrong.

In reference to your particular emphasis, I am not familiar with the original Syriac account, as this is the only place where the author brings in the original Syriac wording—not that I do doubt the scholarship of this particular discussion in the book, but the previous accounts have made me skeptical, and it’s always good to be picky about translation claims . If indeed there is a reference to the nature of God and not the nature of both, then this becomes a mute issue, but if men kayana is taking place, then there is a problem of accountability on Mor Philoxenus’ part.

If the fourth account really is not stating a procession from the Father and the Son, then I see no issue and the Western Syriac’s tradition lacking the clause unthreatened. But I will give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume he is correct. With that, what I see is a contradiction between the first three accounts described by the author and the one final one used to buttress his argument. I say perhaps there is an explanation for the discrepancy due to the East and West Syriac heritages that Mor Philoxenus thrived in. However, this little sinner is known for being wrong.

In the fourth account, Philoxenus mentions that the Holy Spirit is from the nature (men kyana) of the Father and the Son. It is interesting that he does not say from the hypostases (men qnome) of the Father and the Son. If by “from the”, a procession is implied (as I have been assuming all along), and this procession is meant as an origination (as I have concluded in the 2nd account but saw it as a contradiction in the third account), and the origination is from the one kyana or nature of God rather from each qnoma or hypostasis or person of the Father and of the Son, then I see this as a vague statement but can not conclude whether it is orthodox or unorthodox. Basically the statement is saying that the Holy Spirit is from God (God being the nature of the 3 qnome). It’s a very vague statement because of the use of “kyana” rather than “qnome”. Note: Again, the word “proceeds” is not in the actual quote of Philoxenus.

Now, the last part is the confession made at the Synod of Mar Isaac in 410. Again, no word for “proceeds” is used. Only “from the” is used. Here, neither the word “kyana” nor the word “qnome” is used, only the Father and the Son. The text has been translated to say “from the Father and from the Son” in the book, but this is not actually precise. The Syriac text in the footnote says “D-men Abba w-Abra” which more exactly means “from the Father and the Son”. In other words, there is not a second “from” in the Syriac. So, this statement of the Synod is also quite vague because it can be interpreted in several ways, orthodox and unorthodox.

That’s my comments. I hope I did not give you a headache

God bless,

Rony