M
Mickey
Guest
That would be huge! I would be tickled pink!
- Status
G
Ghosty
Guest
It’s a grammatical and theological fact. Buy it or live in self-imposed ignorance of reality.Sorry. I have never bought into the: “and means the same thing as **through **explanation.”
M
Mickey
Guest
I would rather read it for what it says, than to pretend that it says something else.It’s a grammatical and theological fact. Buy it or live in self-imposed ignorance of reality.
M
mardukm
Guest
The Spirit is a Being of the Nature of the Son, and the same Being is of the Nature of the Father.
Surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing…That which the Spirit will receive - wether it will be power, or excellence, or teaching - the Son has said must be received from Him, and again He indicates that this same thing must be received from the Father. For when He says that all things whatsoever the Father hath are His…
There’s filioque right there perfectly expressed by St. John Damascene using the term AND, not through. There are also other places where he uses “through” intead of “and.” The fact is, in terms of Essence/Nature/Substance, the term “and” is equivalent to “through” in the Trinitarian theology of the Damascene, as is the case with ALL the Fathers of the early Church.
It might have taken the genius of St. Palamas to make a distinction between the eternal Energetic Procession and the the eternal Hypostatic Procession.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
LOL! St John was not a filioquist–regardless of how you attempt to spin it.
M
Mickey
Guest
Does the RCC teach that the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally?
G
Ghosty
Guest
Since there is only one procession it must be equal. To be unequal would require two processions. Since everything the Holy Spirit has, He has from the Son, and everything the Son receives from the Father He gives to the Spirit, the Spirit can’t possibly be said to receive more from one than the other. That is the point of the quote from St John Damascene that Mardukm cited above.
Peace and God bless!
M
Mickey
Guest
But the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
M
Mickey
Guest
This speaks of receiving nature…not spiration.
Here is a relevant quote:
Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life . . . God existing and addressed along with Father and Son; uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord; deifying, not deified; filling, not filled; shared in, not sharing in; sanctifying, not sanctified; the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all; in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son.
Saint John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 8
S
SonCatcher
Guest
That doesn’t really make sense since there is only a single procession. “Equality” infers multiple things to be evaluated.
EDIT: that’s a large reason why I find the egg analogy unsatisfying.
M
mardukm
Guest
In terms of Essence/Nature/Substance/Divinity/all power, glory, excellence, teaching, etc. (as the Damascene affirms) - Yes.
I think the issue here is that the Latin word for substance (in Latin substantia; in Greek ousia) can ALSO mean “being” or “subsistence” or, in Greek, hypostasis.
It’s only recently (relative to the history of the Church, that is), that this distinction has been clarified. The Official Clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory has explained that the Latin substantia has always been understood in the Latin Church in relation to Filioque as ousia, and not as hypostasis.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
And another:
And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Sonin a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation.
Saint John** of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 12**
And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Sonin a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation.
Saint John** of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 12**
M
Mickey
Guest
And here:
I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from Himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from Him.
Saint John** of Damascus, Dialogue Against the Manicheans, 5**
I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from Himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from Him.
Saint John** of Damascus, Dialogue Against the Manicheans, 5**
S
stephraim
Guest
"They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced. “In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them [the ‘also from the son’] in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodic letter] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this.”
Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus
Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus
M
mardukm
Guest
Regardless of how you (and Eastern) understand Procession as ekporeusai, the fact remains that the Latins have always understood filioque with the Latin procedit as referring to the transmission of divinity/essence/substance/nature, exactly as the Damasene taught. So the Damascene was indeed a “filioquist” in terms of nature/essence/substance, and in all other properties that the Spirit received from the Father AND THE SON (as indicated in the quotes I gave).
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally.
The 4th Lateran Council, 1215
M
mardukm
Guest
I’ve responded to this in my posts #31 and #35.
To repeat, the Damascene was a “filioquist” in terms of the Nature/essence/substance, and in all other things that the Spirit received from the Father AND THE SON. This is all that the Latin Church has ever taught.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
Again, you can continue to spin things as you like–but St John clearly wrote that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father **through **the Son.
Read his writings which refer specifically to this issue–as I have posted above.
M
Mickey
Guest
One wonders why the Latins did not go ahead and omit the word “and”.
M
mardukm
Guest
In such instances, the Damascene is using Procession according to ekporeusai - thus, “through” is the only proper term to use. But if Procession is understood according to proienai or procedit, then “and” is perfectly proper to use.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status