Blachernae, Florence, Filioque, Causality

[mardukm]

CONT’d

[T]he Holy Spirit, as He is by nature and in the way of essence [the Spirit] of God the Father, so is He also the Son’s by nature and in the way of essence, since He proceeds from the Father essentially and ineffably through the Son, who is begotten.
St. Maximus the Confessor,Quaestiones ad Thalassium, 63(ante A.D. 662)

Of course, he is by nature the Spirit of the Son. We can also talk about this quotation, in light of Gregory Palamas, if you are able to put your disdain for the Eastern Orthodox aside.

St. Maximos affirms the commonality of Essence between the Father and Holy Spirit because of the fact that the Holy Spirit “proceeds FROM the Father ESSENTIALLY…, and affirms the commonality of Essence between the Son and the Holy Spirit because of the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds…ESSENTIALLY THROUGH the Son.” I don’t know what rationalizations are necessary to avoid the obvious intent of this teaching. If it has anything to do with separating the ousia from the energeia WITHIN the Godhead, don’t bother. If you have something else to offer, please do so.

The Holy Spirit is the power of the Father making secrets of the deity known and proceeding from the Father through the Son in a way that he knows, but which is not begetting… The Father is source of the Son and the Holy Spirit…The Spirit is not the Son of the Father, he is the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from him(ekporeuomenon),…but he is also Spirit of the Son, not as (proceeding) from him, but proceeding through him from the Father. Only the Father is cause(aitios).
St. John of Damascus,Orthodox Faith,I:12(A.D. 712)

Ok, and? Where does he say that the essence of the Spirit comes through the Son?

St. John Damascus teaches that the Holy Spirit ekporeusai THROUGH the Son (i.e., the Son is NOT the Source). He teaches what filioque teaches, rightly understood according to what the Latins teach (not according to misrepresentations by non-Latins). He is only concerned about the question of hypostatic origination here, which why in the first sentence, he compares it to the begetting of the Son. What else would you say is ekporeusai “THROUGH the Son” in terms of hypostatic origination? If it is not the ousia, tell me what you think he is referrigg to for which he utilizes the term ekporeusai? The “economic manifestation” theory depends on proienai/procedit. He is here utilizing the term ekporeusai (just as St. Maximos did).

I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him.
St. John of Damascus,Against the Manicheans, 5 (ante A.D. 749)

Still not seeing it.

That’s the teaching of filioque. The idea of “through the Son” is the teaching of filioque. He affirms that the issuing forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father is “THROUGH THE SON.” He affirms the Son’s participation - not as Source, of course, but as agency.

[T’]he Holy Spirit, Lord and giver of Life, proceeding (ekproeusai) from the Father through the Son.
Council of Nicea II(A.D. 787),Profession of Faith(Patriarch Tarasius).

That looks like a spurious interpolation. No patriarch would have confessed a different creed than the one of First Constantinople.

This was actually presented at Florence, and no one contested it then. What rationale do you offer to contest it now? St. Maximos and the Damascene use the same expression - i.e., ekporeusai through the Son. What is so shocking about it? Remember that St. Maximos, who held great influence at Constantinople, had confirmed that the statement was wholly orthodox. Further, it should be noted that extra-conciliar historical sources bear this out. Charlemagne, in a bid to extend his power over the Byzantines, asked the Pope to condemn Patriarch St. Tarasius of heresy precisely because he confessed only “through the Son” instead of “and the Son.” As part of his plot, he tried to get the Pope to add “and the Son” to the Creed. But Pope St. Leo III saw through the scheme, not only refusing to condemn the Patriarch, but also famously refusing to add filioque to the Creed (which would otherwise have furthered Charlemagne’s ambitions) in a very adamant way.

So, I count about two in total which support your assertion directly. The rest are open to interpretation. Let’s talk about those two, if you want to.

All of them confirm the Latin teaching on filioque - that the Son participates in the Procession of Being of the Holy Spirit, though not as Source or Causative power.

Blessings,
Marduk