"As From One Principle"

[stephraim]

One wonders why the Latins did not go ahead and omit the word “and”.

Probably because:

“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.”

If only we really did take some care about it. Perhaps many things could have been avoided by simply writing per Filium instead of long explanatory paragraphs that cause even more confusion. Still, St. Maximos does not seem to condemn the theology behind the Filioque, and in fact admits much Western Patristic evidence, as well as that of St. Cyril, that supports it.

 

[hazcompat]

come

lets sit on the stump near the river together

 

[hazcompat]

humbly

may i ask

how many of you have reached the age of a master as saint johm damascene has described?

peace

 

[Mickey]

But if Procession is understood according to proienai or procedit, then “and” is perfectly proper to use.

Again, that is spin. If the Latins are concerned about true reunion, they will simply discard the word (like the Orthodox and their Eastern Catholic brethren) and return to the original unadulterated creed.

 

[Mickey]

If only we really did take some care about it. Perhaps many things could have been avoided…

Sadly, hundreds of years later, the controversy still exists.

 

[mardukm]

Again, that is spin.

I notice that when you cannot refute someone, that is your usual response. That’s OK. It only demonstrates that your view no longer has a leg to stand on.

If the Latins are concerned about true reunion, they will simply discard the word (like the Orthodox and their Eastern Catholic brethren) and return to the original unadulterated creed.

And if the Easterns were really concerned about reunion, they would return to the Traditional phrenoma of the Eastern Church which focused on the doctrinal Faith itself, rather than the mere text of the Creed. The issue of text is an artificial innovation in East-West relations introduced by MODERN EO’xy. Don’t EO want a return to the standards of the first millenium Church? Or is that only a convenient platitude that can be discarded according to the whims of some (maybe many?) EO?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I notice that when you cannot refute someone, that is your usual response.

Not at all brother. I call it spin when read it as spin. At least I do not start crying “polemicist!”

And if the Easterns were really concerned about reunion, they would return to the Traditional phrenoma of the Eastern Church which focused on the doctrinal Faith itself, rather than the mere text of the Creed.

LOL! The East did not alter the creed. The Latins did.

The issue of text is an artificial innovation in East-West relations introduced by MODERN EO’xy.

Yeah, if you consider about 1000 years as “modern.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Not at all brother. I call it spin when read it as spin. At least I do not start crying “polemicist!”

Well, I never use that word lightly. I only use it when I see a constant and consistent misrepresentation of the Catholic Faith occurring, especially when solid Magisterial evidence to the contrary of the misrepresentation is provided, and there is no like solid documentary evidence for the mispresentation. You are not always a polemicist, but there are times when you are.

LOL! The East did not alter the creed. The Latins did.

Case in point. That focus on the mere text again.:tsktsk:

Yeah, if you consider about 1000 years as “modern.”

I don’t know when modern EO’xy started making the mere text an issue of separation, but it had to be after Mark of Ephesus. Mark of Ephesus likewise thought the addition was unlawful because it represented a DIFFERENT FAITH. So your current position can’t be older than maybe 400 years. Since the Melkites likewise did not make the mere addition of text an issue during reunion, we should probably shorten that to about 300 years.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Well, I never use that word lightly.

Yeah right–only when people do not agree with you.

Case in point. That focus on the mere text again.

LOL! It is much more than the altered text–and you know it.

I don’t know when modern EO’xy started making the mere text an issue of separation, but it had to be after Mark of Ephesus.

Again, it is more than “mere text” (more spin doctoring). St Photius (mid 800’s) called great attention to this issue. But the errors of the Filioque were discussed well before that.

So your 300 year theory is imagination.

 

[Mickey]

My question is: what does “as from one principle” mean? Does it mean “as if he proceeded from both as from one person”? What does “principle” mean in this context? Any elaboration on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

The Latin Church’s Florentine decree states:

In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we
define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence,
that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by
all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the Holy Spirit is
eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence οὐσίαν]
and His subsistent being ύπαρχτιχόν είναι] from the Father together
with the Son, and proceeds ἐκπορεύεται] from both eternally as from
one principle μίᾶς άρχής] and a single spiration. We declare that
when Holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds
ἐκπορεύεσθαι] from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense
that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks
indeed as cause αἰτίαν], and according to the Latins as principle
άρχήν] of the subsistence ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the
Father.

The problem with the Father and Son as ‘one principle’ is that the Holy Spirit, Who obviously is excluded from that principle, ends up being subordinated — the fundamental problem with the Filioque. Unfortunately, because of Roman Catholicism’s understanding of its ‘teaching authority’ (magisterium) in conjunction with the belief in Roman Catholicism’s infallibility, they are unable to repudiate earlier statements, even after recognising them to be in error.

The Latin Church’s solution to the problem of two principles or causes within the Godhead is to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son – in the words of the Florentine decree – “. . . as from one principle and a single spiration.”

But this solution causes additional problems, because as St. Gregory Palamas taught, generation and procession are hypostatic properties of the Father alone; and so, to posit the idea that the Son somehow shares in the existential procession of origin of the Holy Spirit confounds the hypostases of the Father and the Son, collapsing them into one and the same hypostasis.

The Latin Church, by asserting the idea that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Holy Spirit, has fallen into a form of Sabellian modalism, because both begetting and spiration are personal properties of the Father alone, and as personal (hypostatic) properties, they cannot be shared with any other person in the Trinity, or the real distinction between the hypostases collapses.

One further difficulty results from the Latin doctrine which holds that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Spirit, and it is focused upon the nature of the unity of the Godhead. It is an ancient principle of Catholic Triadology that anything that is common to two of the hypostases of the Trinity, is common to all three hypostases, because of their common essence (ousia); in other words, if the Father and the Son are a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Spirit must also be a “single principle” with them in His own spiration, and that is clearly nonsensical. The hypostases of the Trinity are only distinguished by their unique hypostatic properties (idiotes), and so anything that is common to the Father and the Son, must also be common to the Holy Spirit. As St. Basil said, “The Spirit shares titles held in common by the Father and the Son; He receives these titles due to His natural and intimate relationship with them.”

Continued

 

[Mickey]

Thus, the idea that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves a confusion of hypostasis and essence (ousia) within the Godhead, because anything common to the hypostases is founded upon the one divine essence (ousia) that they share, and that is why the Western notion that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the procession of the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis is theologically unworkable. Therefore, to hold that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” of origin in relation to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves either Sabellian modalism, or an essential subordination of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, because He does not possess a common quality shared by the Father and the Son, and consequently must be essentially distinct and subordinate in relation to them.

St. John Damascene’s doctrine of perichoresis allows the distinct hypostases to indwell each other, while remaining truly distinct, and that is why the Spirit, which is properly the Spirit of the Father, is also the Spirit of the Son, but as St. John goes on to say, “. . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son.” Clearly, there is no filioque in the theology of St. John Damascene…

Moreover, St. John Damascene does not reduce the hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence as do most Western theologians (for example St. Thomas Aquinas), nor does he fail to distinguish between essence (ousia) and hypostasis as Westerners since the time of St. Augustine have tended to do.
sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

 

[Mickey]

It should be noted that St. Maximos the Confessor (in the 7th century) defended the Latin Church’s use of the filioque, and held that it in no way harmed the sole causality of the Father, but that does not mean that St. Maximos would have accepted the Florentine decree on the filioque. In fact, it is likely that he would have had problems with the Florentine definition, because it appears to be contrary to what he said the Latins meant by the term in his own century. As Richard Haugh has pointed out, “When Maximos questioned the Latins about this, they appealed to the Latin Fathers and ‘even to St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel of John.’ Maximos, however, does his best to interpret the Latin doctrine of the Filioque along the Greek patristic lines, claiming that the Latins were ‘far from making the Son the cause of the Spirit, for they recognize the Father as the one cause of the Son and of the Spirit; the former by generation, the latter by procession.’ Maximos then states that the Latin Filioque was an attempt ‘to express the Spirit’s going forth through the Son’ and thus to establish the oneness and inseparable unity of their substance. Maximos also states that he admonished the Romans to be more careful in the usage and meaning of their expressions, adding that he thought the reaction from Constantinople would cause the Romans to be more cautious in the future.” [Richard Haugh. Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975). Page 33] Now of course it appears that by the 15th century the Latins had forgotten the importance of making the distinction between the existential procession of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father alone, and His manifestation or shining forth in the divine energy, which takes place through the Son, and that is why the Council of Florence went so far as to say that “. . . the Holy Spirit eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; we declare that what Holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also.” [Roy J. Defarrari, page 219] St. Maximos, almost eight hundred years before the Council of Florence, insisted that the Latins were not making the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit with the filioque, but ironically enough, that is exactly what the Florentine definition insists is the case, for it declares* that the Son is a cause* of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.
sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Yeah right–only when people do not agree with you.

I do not claim that people agree with me, but with the Church. That is why I give direct evidence from Catholic Magisterial documents, while all you can give are non-Catholic misrepresentations.

LOL! It is much more than the altered text–and you know it.

That’s what I keep saying. The solution to the whole problem is not the mere text, but a resolution of the doctrinal misunderstanding. You (and others) are the ones going on about removing the text.

Again, it is more than “mere text” (more spin doctoring). St Photius (mid 800’s) called great attention to this issue. But the errors of the Filioque were discussed well before that.

Yes, as I already repeatedly stated, from St. Photius on down to Mark of Ephesus, its was the DOCTRINAL aspect that was at issue. It is only EO such as yourself who are doing the spin doctoring by pretending that the “mere text” is an issue of separation.

So your 300 year theory is imagination.

The “removal of text” position is an innovation. We should be focusing on the doctrinal aspect only, because that is what was of concern to the Fathers.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I do not claim that people agree with me, but with the Church.

And your interpretations.

That’s what I keep saying. The solution to the whole problem is not the mere text, but a resolution of the doctrinal misunderstanding. You (and others) are the ones going on about removing the text.

It is both, brother–Rome’s doctrinal errors and the altered text which illustrates the error.

Yes, as I already repeatedly stated, from St. Photius on down to Mark of Ephesus, its was the DOCTRINAL aspect that was at issue. It is only EO such as yourself who are doing the spin doctoring by pretending that the “mere text” is an issue of separation.

ROTFL! You just spun it again because I showed you it goes back longer than 300 years.

The “removal of text” position is an innovation.

Altering the text to justify a doctrinal error is the real innovation. :yup:

We should be focusing on the doctrinal aspect only, because that is what was of concern to the Fathers.

Yes. And we can begin by removing the phrase “and the Son” from the creed.

 

[mardukm]

The Latin Church’s Florentine decree states:
In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we
define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence,
that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by
all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the Holy Spirit is
eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence οὐσίαν]
and His subsistent being ύπαρχτιχόν είναι] from the Father together
with the Son, and proceeds ἐκπορεύεται] from both eternally as from
one principle μίᾶς άρχής] and a single spiration. We declare that
when Holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds
ἐκπορεύεσθαι] from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense
that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks
indeed as cause αἰτίαν], and according to the Latins as principle
άρχήν] of the subsistence ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the
Father.

Very interesting. Thanks for presenting the Greek version. It makes it even more obvious that the Latins were thoroughly orthodox. The Greek ύπἁρξεως (existence) is a different concept than hypostasis (Being). ύπἁρξεως refers to something more general than hypostasis. It is more connected with the concept of ousia than with hypostasis. To be more concise, ύπἁρξεως corresponds to the idea of one’s existence as WHAT; in distinction, hypostasis corresponds to the idea of one’s existence as WHO. So Florence does not violate the principles enunciated by St. Palamas after all. Sincerely, thanks again!!!

The problem with the Father and Son as ‘one principle’ is that the Holy Spirit, Who obviously is excluded from that principle, ends up being subordinated — the fundamental problem with the Filioque

.
I’ve heard that same argument used by JW’s and Mormons against the Divinity and equality of the Father and Son. Fancy that. Your “fundamental problem” turns out to be a problem of inconsistency in your rhetoric. The fact is, even if the Father and Son share the principle, they are nevertheless distinguished in terms of the Father as the SOURCE of the Principle, and the Son as the MEDIATION of the Principle. The idea of One Principle simply protects against the error that the Father somehow is the origin of one PART of the Spirit, and the Son is the origin of another PART of the Spirit. That’s all it means. It has nothing to do with perfectly equating the hypostasis of Father and Son. EO polemicists can misinterpret the Latin Catholic idea of “one principle” 100 ways to Sunday, but it will never mean what they say it means.

But this solution causes additional problems, because as St. Gregory Palamas taught, generation and procession are hypostatic

properties of the Father alone; and so, to posit the idea that the Son somehow shares in the existential procession of origin of the Holy Spirit confounds the hypostases of the Father and the Son, collapsing them into one and the same hypostasis.
Not if one distinguishes between the SOURCE of the Procession from the MEDIATION of the Procession.

The Latin Church, by asserting the idea that the Father and the Son form a single principle

in the spiration of the Holy Spirit, has fallen into a form of Sabellian modalism, because both begetting and spiration are personal properties of the Father alone, and as personal (hypostatic) properties, they cannot be shared with any other person in the Trinity, or the real distinction between the hypostases collapses.
That’s another misunderstanding of the Latin Catholic teaching. The Son is not the one Who spirates. It is the Father ALONE Who Spirates, and the principle of Spiration is mediated through the Son.

As I often wonder, why can’t non-Catholics face Catholic teaching as the Catholic Chruch teaches it? Why do they have to constantly misinterpret and misrepresent it to knock down a straw man?

One further difficulty results from the Latin doctrine which holds that the Father and the Son form a single principle

in the spiration of the Spirit, and it is focused upon the nature of the unity of the Godhead. It is an ancient principle of Catholic Triadology that anything that is common to two of the hypostases of the Trinity, is common to all three hypostases, because of their common essence (ousia); in other words, if the Father and the Son are a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Spirit must also be a “single principle” with them in His own spiration, and that is clearly nonsensical.
The nonsense comes from the nonsense of misrepresenting Catholic teaching. What the author of this piece does not take into account is that the Catholic teaching distinguishes the Father as the Source of the Procession from the Son as the Mediation of the Procession. Their roles in the Procession are different, and this difference in Roles is part of their Hypostatic properties. But there is nevertheless only ONE principle of Procession, a Procession that has its source from the Father and mediated through the Son.

CONTINUED

 

[Mickey]

The nonsense comes from the nonsense of misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

Spin spin spin…when the spinning stops the insults resume. How very sad.

 

[Mickey]

I am beginning to realize a connection to another thread from a while back. Much of the Latin spin on the filioque comes from Anselm’s and Aqunias’ medieval scholasticism.

 

[mardukm]

Thus, the idea that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves a confusion of hypostasis and essence (ousia) within the Godhead, because anything common to the hypostases is founded upon the one divine essence (ousia) that they share, and that is why the Western notion that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the procession of the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis is theologically unworkable.

As evinced by brother Mickey’s citation of the relevant Greek terms in the Florence Decree, the problem is that this EO author confuses ύπἁρξεως with hypostasis. Further, the author, for all his pretensions about Latin Catholics confusing the hypostasis of Father and Son, himself fails to distinguish between the Father’s hypostatic property as Source and the Son’s hypostatic property as Mediation. So his criticisms are thoroughly invalid.

Therefore, to hold that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” of origin in relation to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves either Sabellian modalism, or an essential subordination of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, because He does not possess a common quality shared by the Father and the Son, and consequently must be essentially distinct and subordinate in relation to them.

The same invalid argument proposed by those who subordinate the Son to the Father.

St. John Damascene’s doctrine of perichoresis allows the distinct hypostases to indwell each other, while remaining truly distinct, and that is why the Spirit, which is properly the Spirit of the Father, is also the Spirit of the Son, but as St. John goes on to say, “. . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son.” Clearly, there is no filioque in the theology of St. John Damascene…

And neither does the Latin Catholic Church teach that the Son is the Source of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, but rather is the Mediation of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. As the Florence Decree specifically teaches: “The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father.” From this, it is plainly obvious that the Latins never taught that the Son is the SOURCE of the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, St. John Damascene does not reduce the hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence as do most Western theologians (for example St. Thomas Aquinas)

What does this mean? What do modern EO pretend the Fathers taught was the distinguishing mark between the hypostases, if not their very relations to one another? Can someone answer this please?

Nor does he fail to distinguish between essence (ousia) and hypostasis as Westerners since the time of St. Augustine have tended to do.

This is bogus. As mentioned in a previous post, the Latin term substantia can indeed mean BOTH ousia and hypostasis in Greek, and Latin sources do utilize substantia as ousia in some instances, and substantia as hypostasis in other instances. but to accuse the Latins of actually failing to distinguish between ousia and hypostasis is a mark of sheer polemicism. The context reveals that when they did use those terms as such, they never failed to distinguish the concept of ousia from hypostasis (i.e., there is never a source that uses substantia as ousia and substantia as hypostasis simultaneously). If substantia is used as ousia, the same source will use persona for hypostasis; if substantia is used as hypostasis, the same source will use natura for ousia. So there was never a confusion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

This is bogus.

Not at all. It is a valid and well thought out synopsis of the issue and Latin errors.

When you begin your insults, I know that it has merit.

I recommend everyone to read the article.

 

[mardukm]

Spin spin spin…when the spinning stops the insults resume. How very sad.

That’s OK, brother. As noted earlier, we know that the word “spin” flows from your pen whenever your polemics no longer have a single leg to stand on. Just face it, you simply have no response.

Blessings,
Marduk