Double Procession of the Holy Spirit?

[dcointin]

The third section of the Nicene Creed which dealt with the Holy Spirit was in response to heresies denying its personhood and deity, and was added at the Council of Constantinople (which is why it’s technically called the “Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed”). The Filioque, however, was first added at the Council of Toledo in response to the denial of the divinity of the Son; if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father, then the Son must be truly consubstantial with him. Would this have properly argued the point if the Spirit only proceeded through the Son, or went out from the Son, but in no way had its origin in him? I

 

[mardukm]

No it wasn’t.

How many times has it been asserted (here and elsewhere) that the filioque was intended to combat Arianism in Spai
n, which in fact was a heresy maintaing the it was Jesus who was not God.

The filioque was intended to show that Jesus was as much God as the Father, and so could also send forth the Holy Spirit as the Father does.

Double origin to prove Jesus was God, not just some exalted holy person.

No.

Let’s back up a bit. Let’s assume that the Latins had “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.”

In their minds the phrase did not mean that the Father is the Origin of the Holy Spirit, but merely that the Father shares the Divine Essence with the Spirit. In either sense, the intent of Constantinople - the Holy Spirit is God - is preserved.

Given the Latin understanding of the word procedit as merely a going forth and not an origination, then it was in no way heretical for them to add “and the Son.” In their mind, adding “And the Son” to the phrase simply meant that the Three Persons share in the Divine Essence. NO BIG DEAL.

Where’s the heresy in that?

The issue of the Arche of the Father did not even come up until the time of St. Maximos (as stated, that was not even an issue to the Fathers of Constantinople). At that time, when St. Maximos inquired of the Latins what they meant by adding filioque, the Latins explicitly asserted the phrase did not deny the Arche of the Father.

So 200 years before St. Photius repeated the same charges, the matter was already settled in the Church.

So - no heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dcointin,

Would this have properly argued the point if the Spirit only proceeded through the Son, or went out from the Son, but in no way had its origin in him? I

Yes, because the Procession, no matter how you interpret that action, is an Eternal action of the Father. And no mere creature can be Eternal.

But, as already stated in previous posts, filioque is not meant by Latins to mean that the Son shares in the character of Origination, which only the Father possesses, but that the Son “transmits”.the Essential Divinity to the Holy Spirit, as a multiude of early Church Fathers East and West testify.

Blessings.

 

[mardukm]

So when the church at Rome received the creed from Constantinople, they never understood it to mean that Jesus originated with the Father, put instead passed through the Father, and the Holy Spirit did not originate with the Father, but passed through the Father.

When they received the Creed from Constantinople, they knew that the phrase was intended to affirm the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings

 

[revert_jen]

So when the church at Rome received the creed from Constantinople, they never understood it to mean that Jesus originated with the Father, put instead passed through the Father, and the Holy Spirit did not originate with the Father, but passed through the Father.

Is that correct?

No. What I am trying to say is that the text itself does not imply either an origination or passing through. The word means both. You are creating a distinction in the word that doesn’t exist and then trying to pin down which side of the distinction was meant. To my mind (I’m not a historian) that the people who translated it could have understood that the Greek word did mean that the Holy Spirit originated from the Father. But there wasn’t a word in Latin that appropriately expressed that. Then a couple of centuries later people added “filioque” to the Latin version only, which, since the word procedit does not differentiate between proceeding from and proceeding through, was not heretical, merely inexact.

And where does the creed say in Latin that the Son “procedit” from the father? The one I have says, “Et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula” and “Genitum, non factum.”

I’m not a theologian, but it still seems simple to me.

–Jen

 

[mardukm]

No, because for the Orthodox ‘Proceeding’ signifies a type of origin, for which then we would understand the term “and the Son” to mean sharing that role as origin.

It is’t the word used as much as the meaning. For Orthodox ‘Proceeding’ in English signifies a point of origin, just as it probably did for the early Latin Catholics.

Modern Catholic apologists are trying to use this argument to explain away the fact that their own predecessor church taught double-procession and double origin and were more than willing to risk schism over it.

But “proceed” is not a proper translation of ekporeusai. It’s ambiguous to Western Christians - besides the fact that “proceeds” is direcly derived from the Latin procedit, and Latins have more of a right to that word that Easterns do. Why don’t you use a more proper word, for the sake of understanding? Are EO being purposefully ambiguous?

So the shoe is on the other foot. Interesting how, in response to this admittedly rhetorical argument, you will plead for understanding, but it doesn’t seem EO are willing to do the same for the Westerns.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I just thought of something.

There is something altogether rhetorically impressive in the Latin understanding of the phrase “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.”

What I mean is this -

The Council of Constantinople sought to defend the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Interestingly, the phrase “the Holy Spirit originates from the Father” does not achieve that desired purpose, for the Pneumatomachi could still interpret the Holy Spirit as a creature with that phrase.

It seems the Latin understanding of the phrase - in terms of sharing the Divine Essence - has a better rhetorical value for the sake of defending the divinity of the Holy Spirit than merely asserting the Holy Spirit’s origin from the Father.

Just thinking out loud.

Blessings

 

[Hesychios]

But “proceed” is not a proper translation of ekporeusai. It’s ambiguous to Western Christians

Now perhaps, through poor catechesis, but they received the Creed in Greek and first learned it in Greek.

Even I (knowing little Greek or Latin) have always understood the term “Proceeds from” in the Creed to cite the point of origin, and as a parallel to “beget” which is also referring to origin. That is what people are taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Holy Orthodox church.

As I quoted above, these issues were high on the minds of the Fathers and could not have been missed.

"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God."
Saint Gregory of Nazianzus

 

[Hesychios]

You are creating a distinction in the word that doesn’t exist and then trying to pin down which side of the distinction was meant.

But the teaching behind the words should be correct regardless of the inadequacy of the language.

What people are trying to assert here is that the teaching was correct when the Creed was composed and then the church at the city of Rome, under the patronage of Peter no less, somehow ‘forgot’ it.

• Jesus comes from the Father through begetting -
• The Holy Ghost comes from the Father by processing.

These are parallels.

The reason this point has to be emphasized is that the filioque was not made a separate sentence (where it could be explained to be a different action), but tacked on to the assertion that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, so this ‘coming from’ has to have the same sense as the original ‘coming from’. It was the equivalent of saying ‘likewise’. This is what the Spanish did to counter local claims that Jesus was not God, “sure He’s God, you see? He can do this just like the Father!”.

When Cardinals Humbert and Frederic excommunicated the See of Constantinople, they actually thought (for some reason) that the Greeks had deleted this teaching from the Creed!

… like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;

 

[mardukm]

Now perhaps, through poor catechesis, but they received the Creed in Greek and first learned it in Greek.

History, brother! History! The Latins did not recieve it in Greek, they received it in Latin. It ws translated to Latin from the Greek during the time of Chalcedon, and when it was spread to the other Latin Churches, they received it in Latin, not in Greek, never in Greek.
As another poster has stated, why must some EO try to recreate history to prove its point?

Even I (knowing little Greek or Latin) have always understood the term “Proceeds from” in the Creed to cite the point of origin, and as a parallel to “beget” which is also referring to origin. That is what people are taught by the infallible Magisterium of the Holy Orthodox church.

Yes, because the Easterns received it in Greek and translated to English. But The Latins received it in Latin and then translated to English. The Greeks used an ambiguous word (“proceeds”) that came from Latin to translate ekporeusai. Either way, there was error in the Greek translation into English.

As I quoted above, these issues were high on the minds of the Fathers and could not have been missed.

"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God."

Oh. Is this ithe same Gregory who wrote: “If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not, If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not.”
The Fifth Theological Oration On the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The reason this point has to be emphasized is that the filioque was not made a separate sentence (where it could be explained to be a different action), but tacked on to the assertion that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, so this ‘coming from’ has to have the same sense as the original ‘coming from’.

The problem with your whole rhetoric is that it is based on a fanciful history that the Latins received the Creed in Greek. When they received it, they received it in Latin, and the word procedit has never had the same denotation of ontological origination that ekporeusai had.

It was the equivalent of saying ‘likewise’. This is what the Spanish did to counter local claims that Jesus was not God, “sure He’s God, you see? He can do this just like the Father!”.
The addition was not intended to claim that Jesus is God because he is the origin of the Holy Spirit like the Father. The addition was intended to claim that Jesus is God by his participation in the “transmission” of the Divine Essence like the Father.

Blessings

 

[dcointin]

I just thought of something.

There is something altogether rhetorically impressive in the Latin understanding of the phrase “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.”

What I mean is this -

The Council of Constantinople sought to defend the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Interestingly, the phrase “the Holy Spirit originates from the Father” does not achieve that desired purpose, for the Pneumatomachi could still interpret the Holy Spirit as a creature with that phrase.

It seems the Latin understanding of the phrase - in terms of sharing the Divine Essence - has a better rhetorical value for the sake of defending the divinity of the Holy Spirit than merely asserting the Holy Spirit’s origin from the Father.

Just thinking out loud.

Blessings

I accept your earlier point about the Council of Toledo

I would have to disagree since the word “proceeds”, whether in Greek or Latin, indicates an eternal action, as you have pointed out. The Holy Spirit “proceeds”, rather than being created. The creed further says “who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified”, and worship and glorification can only be rightly given to God.

I would also like your thoughts on expressions I’ve found in sources such as the Athanasian Creed which says the following:

“The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding.”

How do you interpret this phrase “of the Son”? Thank you again!

 

[Hesychios]

History, brother! History! The Latins did not recieve it in Greek, they received it in Latin. It was translated to Latin from the Greek during the time of Chalcedon,

Are you trying to tell us the clergy of the See of Rome did not know Greek? At the time of the two councils of Niceae [324AD] and Constantinople [381AD] …

• The Mass was in Greek
• Knowledge of the Greek was part of a classical education
• The southern half of Italy was speaking Greek natively as a first language, and people of that (Greek) as a first language were numerous in the city of Rome, there were even Greek monasteries near Rome
• Greek was widely known by common workers at the port cities around the Mediterranean (Spain, Gaul, Italy, Africa), many of which cities were also Greek in foundation.
• Legates from the See of Rome and other western Sees attended the Councils and actively participated in Greek

The Council of Chalcedon occurred in 451 AD (seventy years, or 3 - 4 generations later). That means (if you are correct) *every *copy of the Creed and canons circulating in the west in parishes and cathedral chapters was in Greek until that year. Every clergyman and layperson would have had to understand the Creed in the sense of the Greek until new copies began to circulate. Then, of course, there would have been two copies in most places: the original Greek and the new Latin.

As Christians, orthodox in Faith, even the illiterate would have heard this Faith preached in accordance with conciliar teaching. Their priests would have explained it to them with joy in the temples, and converts would have been closely schooled in the common teaching.

What you are trying to claim is that the Catholic church suddenly went into amnesia and ‘forgot’ what the Fathers of the church (which included westerners) were asserting strongly: that* the Son and the Holy Spirit originate and come forth from the Father*.

This is the acclaimed Monarchy of the Father.

It seems that I have more faith in the vigour and integrity of the early Roman church than you do. You are making them look like a bunch of dullards.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dcointin,

I accept your earlier point about the Council of Toledo

For the glory of Christ, brother.

I would have to disagree since the word “proceeds”, whether in Greek or Latin, indicates an eternal action, as you have pointed out.

Could you please explain the disagreement?

The creed further says “who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified”, and worship and glorification can only be rightly given to God.

You also have to remember that the Arians worshipped Jesus as God, even though they thought He was a creature. The pneumatomachi had no problem with worshipping the Spirit either, even though they considered him a creature. The Latin understanding of “proceeds” as a transmission of the Essence of Divinity is sublimely powerful, don’t you think?

I would also like your thoughts on expressions I’ve found in sources such as the Athanasian Creed which says the following:

“The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding.”

How do you interpret this phrase “of the Son”? Thank you again!

The Creed was explicitly used by St. Caeserius of Arles in the late 5th century, and recently discovered (in the 1940’s) works of St. Vincent of Lerins (died around 440 A.D.), wherein certain phrases are found identical to the unique wording of the Creed, have caused scholars to attribute the origin of the Creed to the early fifth century.

Personally, I would not attribute the origin of the Creed to a Western author, but rather to one of Alexandrian origin, perhaps a student of Pope St. Athanasius.

The reason I believe this is because the Christological confession in the Creed is decidedly miaphysite.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ;

Notice the constant stress on the oneness of the Person of Christ. This is a distinguishing factor of miaphysite Christology.

I would personally place the date of its composition before the Council of Ephesus, just for the fact that even though it lays great stress on the two-in-one nature of Christ, there is no mention of the Theotokos, which would necessarily have been the case if it was formulated after that Council.

In any case, as regards the statement on the Holy Spirit in the Creed, that also supports my theory of a truly Alexandrian origin, because Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son (btw, the Latin original of the line in question of the Athanasian Creed uses the word procedens - if you have not made the connection yet, the Latin procedit is actually a more equivalent translation of the Greek proienai intead of the Greek ekporeusai).

St. Athanasius also taught about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son:
“All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son…When the Father says, “This is my beloved Son,” and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father.”
(Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Ch. V)

In his Epistles 56 and 61, St. Athanasius also asserts that the Arian’s heresy against the Son is also a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because if the Son is not Divine, then Divinity would not have been transmitted to the Spirit, and the Spirit would be a creature.

So the statement “The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding procedens]” is perfectly in line with the Alexandrian theology, as expressed by her two greatest popes. Keep in mind that the term procedit/procedens (the best translation of St. Cyril’s proienai) seeks only to express the “transmission” of the Essence of Divinity, and does not seek to denote ontological origination.

Does that help?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Are you trying to tell us the clergy of the See of Rome did not know Greek?

By the time of the Council of Chalcedon, yes, they did not know Greek.

At the time of the two councils of Niceae [324AD] and Constantinople [381AD]

At the time of Nicea, they knew Greek. By the time of Constantinople, many knew Greek, but not all. The ones who knew Greek would likely have been in Italy. The rest of the Roman empire by this time would have used Latin, the language of the common people. …

*]
The Mass was in Greek

There was a transition period in the 4th century. Most, if not all scholars, agree that by the end of the fourth century, the sacramentaries of the Western Church were fully in Latin.

*]
Knowledge of the Greek was part of a classical education.

But not for the common folk who could not afford it. Since the laity did not know it, It would be incumbent for the local Church to do the liturgy in Latin.

*]
The southern half of Italy was speaking Greek natively as a first language, and people of that (Greek) as a first language were numerous in the city of Rome, there were even Greek monasteries near Rome.

That’s fine. As far as the presence of Greek monasteries, that proves nothing.

*]
Greek was widely known by common workers at the port cities around the Mediterranean (Spain, Gaul, Italy, Africa), many of which cities were also Greek in foundation.

It was a commercial language, but not the common language. And though one might expect some wealthy merchant families could speak it fluently, the same cannot be expected of the common folk.

*]
Legates from the See of Rome and other western Sees attended the Councils and actively participated in Greek.

At the Council of Ephesus, the letters of the Pope were in Latin and had to be translated. The legates, in fact, asserted that it was “the custom…that the writings of the Apostolic See should first be read in Latin.” That demonstrates that the ecclesiastical language of the Western Church by that time was Latin (and probably for some time before that if it was, as the legates stated, “custom”). Greek would be known by a few qualified clerics, and those are the ones who would normally be sent as legates.

At the Council of Chalcedon, an interpreter had to be present because the legates only spoke Latin. An extract from the Acts states: “Paschasinus the bishop of Lilybaeum, in the province of Silicia, and holding the place of the most holy Leo, archbishop of the Apostolic See of Old Rome, said in Latin what being interpreted is as follows…” The legate was not reading a letter, but addressing the Council in Latin.

The Council of Chalcedon occurred in 451 AD (seventy years, or 3 - 4 generations later). That means (if you are correct) *every *copy of the Creed and canons circulating in the west in parishes and cathedral chapters was in Greek until that year. Every clergyman and layperson would have had to understand the Creed in the sense of the Greek until new copies began to circulate. Then, of course, there would have been two copies in most places: the original Greek and the new Latin.

History, brother. History! The Creed of Constantinople did not reach the Latin Church until after Chalcedon, so I don’t know what in the world you are referring to when you say that there was a Creed circulating in Greek in the West until the time of Chalcedon. The only Creed that would have been circulating in the West before Chalcedon would have been the Nicene Creed, not the Constantinopolitan Creed.

It seems that I have more faith in the vigour and integrity of the early Roman church than you do. You are making them look like a bunch of dullards.

Nah. I’m just applying the TRUE historical facts. If we accepted your fanciful history, THEN we’d be a “bunch of dullards.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

By the time of the Council of Chalcedon, yes, they did not know Greek.

Well, we can’t prove a negative.

I doubt that seriously. But the point is not the language as such, but the meaning and the intent of the Fathers of the Councils, which could not have escaped them since they participated.

At the time of Nicaea, they knew Greek. By the time of Constantinople, many knew Greek, but not all. The ones who knew Greek would likely have been in Italy. The rest of the Roman empire by this time would have used Latin, the language of the common people. …

There was a transition period in the 4th century. Most, if not all scholars, agree that by the end of the fourth century, the sacramentaries of the Western Church were fully in Latin.

But not for the common folk who could not afford it. Since the laity did not know it, It would be incumbent for the local Church to do the liturgy in Latin.

That’s fine. As far as the presence of Greek monasteries, that proves nothing.

It was a commercial language, but not the common language. And though one might expect some wealthy merchant families could speak it fluently, the same cannot be expected of the common folk.

it is not the common folk who stand at rthe altar of God and become the bishops. These are trained men.

At the Council of Ephesus, the letters of the Pope were in Latin and had to be translated. The legates, in fact, asserted that it was “the custom…that the writings of the Apostolic See should first be read in Latin.” That demonstrates that the ecclesiastical language of the Western Church by that time was Latin (and probably for some time before that if it was, as the legates stated, “custom”). Greek would be known by a few qualified clerics, and those are the ones who would normally be sent as legates.

This is very good information to know.

History, brother. History! The Creed of Constantinople did not reach the Latin Church until after Chalcedon,

How is it then, that a Creed hammered out at a Council in 381 with the presence and participation of the bishop of Rome’s legates and other bishops and priests of the western church did not reach Rome for seventy years? This was a council (Constantinople) which was approved by the bishop of Rome Damasus (no theological lightweight himself).

I find the entire explanation unsatisfactory.

 

[Hesychios]

By the time of the Council of Chalcedon, yes, they did not know Greek.

Well, we can’t prove a negative.

I doubt that seriously. But the point is not the language as such, but the meaning and the intent of the Fathers of the Councils, which could not have escaped them since they participated.

At the time of Nicaea, they knew Greek. By the time of Constantinople, many knew Greek, but not all. The ones who knew Greek would likely have been in Italy. The rest of the Roman empire by this time would have used Latin, the language of the common people. …

There was a transition period in the 4th century. Most, if not all scholars, agree that by the end of the fourth century, the sacramentaries of the Western Church were fully in Latin.

But not for the common folk who could not afford it. Since the laity did not know it, It would be incumbent for the local Church to do the liturgy in Latin.

That’s fine. As far as the presence of Greek monasteries, that proves nothing.

It was a commercial language, but not the common language. And though one might expect some wealthy merchant families could speak it fluently, the same cannot be expected of the common folk.

It is not the common folk who stand at the altar of God and become the bishops. These are trained men and the Magisterium is supposed to preserve the Faith. You are suggesting that they did not know what they had agreed to and thus, the later double origin theory is excusable. :tsktsk:

At the Council of Ephesus, the letters of the Pope were in Latin and had to be translated. The legates, in fact, asserted that it was “the custom…that the writings of the Apostolic See should first be read in Latin.” That demonstrates that the ecclesiastical language of the Western Church by that time was Latin (and probably for some time before that if it was, as the legates stated, “custom”). Greek would be known by a few qualified clerics, and those are the ones who would normally be sent as legates.

This is very good information to know.

History, brother. History! The Creed of Constantinople did not reach the Latin Church until after Chalcedon,

How is it then, that a Creed hammered out at a Council in 381 with the presence and participation of the bishop of Rome’s legates and other bishops and priests of the western church did not reach Rome for seventy years? This was a council (Constantinople) which was approved by the bishop of Rome Damasus (no theological lightweight himself).

I find the entire explanation unsatisfactory.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Thank you for your response. It reveals some deficiencies in my previous explanations. I hope the following will supply that want:

Well, we can’t prove a negative.

I doubt that seriously. But the point is not the language as such, but the meaning and the intent of the Fathers of the Councils, which could not have escaped them since they participated.
It is not the common folk who stand at the altar of God and become the bishops. These are trained men and the Magisterium is supposed to preserve the Faith. You are suggesting that they did not know what they had agreed to and thus, the later double origin theory is excusable. :tsktsk:
This is very good information to know.
How is it then, that a Creed hammered out at a Council in 381 with the presence and participation of the bishop of Rome’s legates and other bishops and priests of the western church did not reach Rome for seventy years? This was a council (Constantinople) which was approved by the bishop of Rome Damasus (no theological lightweight himself).

I find the entire explanation unsatisfactory.

The first thing you must understand, and understand perfectly, is that the West did not participate at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

It did not gain general acceptance in the West nor in Alexandria, most likely because of Canon V, which contradicted the Council of Nicea. At the Council of Ephesus, it was not accepted as an Ecumenical Council. Neither did the The “Robber Council” of 449 under the presidency of Pope St. Dionysius recognize the 381 Council in Constantinople as Ecumenical.

The first time Constantinople gained any Ecumenical status was at Chalcedon in 451 A.D… That was also the first time that the 381 Creed of Constantinople came into general circulation in the West. During the time of Chalcedon, Pope St. Leo requested a copy of the Creed. Hence, it was translated into Latin, and from there it was distributed to the other Churches in the West in Latin.

So the first time Latin Christians saw the Creed of Constantinople was with the term procedit, which they knew did not denote origination, but was simply an expression of the unity of Divine Essence.

But here is another bit of history that may not be immediately evident to you - the line in question “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” is taken from John 15:26. When the Creed of Constantinople arrived in the Latin lands, they knew that 1) it was a statement in defense of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and 2) it was based on Scripture. So if Latins wanted to verify the Scriptural basis and looked in their Bibles - guess what, they would have found their bibles using PROCEDIT in John 15:26 because that is the way St. Jerome translated ekporeusai from the Greek Bible.

To repeat, origination is not the primary nor common understanding of procedit. Given that, adding “and the Son” would not imply two origins in the minds of the Latins. Thus, no heresy.

As stated, your whole theory is based on a false history, and an anachronism: The false history is easily seen from what is related above. The anachronism comes from your trying to impose the issue about the Arche of the Father to a time when it was not even an issue. Absolutely no one, not even the heretics, denied the arche of the Father. That’s not to say that the Creed did not inherently admit the Arche of the Father, because that was a fundamental teaching of the Christian Faith. What I am saying is that the Fathers of Constantinople did not add the phrase “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” to the Nicene Creed in order to combat a denial of the Arche of the Father. They did it to defend the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

The “you are denying the Arche of the Father” rhetoric is a wholly polemic and artificial argument which never came up until the time of St. Maximos, was settled, but has been renewed with no reasonable basis by EO polemicists (not saying that all EO are like that) - at least St. Photius, the Fathers of Blacharnae and St. Palamas did not know Latin, and so can be absolved of any malice on their part. But many EO polemicists today have the benefit of many explanations. yet maintain a blind - even malicious - opposition on the matter (not saying you are one of these, brother).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

That’s fine. As far as the presence of Greek monasteries, that proves nothing.

Case in point, there are still Greek monasteries near Rome, such as Grottaferrata. Italo-Greek Catholicism has been dying out slowly over sixteen hundred years and counting, but it’s still around. That doesn’t mean that Italy as a whole would have been familiar with or aware of the translation problem in the Creed and the difference in meaning between the two texts, whether we’re talking about the late 5th century or the brief Byzantine revival under Roger I.

 

[mardukm]

I have been asked by two members to present an explanation that could reconcile filioque with Eastern Orthodox Pneumatology. For those who asked, please forgive me for taking so long.

Before I offer my explanation, let me just repeat what has been discussed so far. The early Church Fathers - East, West and Orient - taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (i.e., procedit or proienai) – not originates (i.e. ekporeusai) - substantially from the Father and the Son. By this is meant that the Essence of Divinity flows from the Father and the Son to the Spirit, denoting their consubstantiality. Though this paradigm does not refer to origination, that the Father is the Source of this Essence, not the Son, is nevertheless an inherent feature of the teaching – as explicitly dogmatized by the Councils of Lyons and Florence. In effect, the Essence of Divinity flows from the Father through the Son to the Holy Spirit. What makes the Holy Spirit God comes from the Father through the Son.

In the words of St. Gregory Nazianzen, “If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not, If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not.”

I have already quoted Pope St. Athanasius above, affirming that the Spirit partakes of the Father’s Essence from the Son, and Pope St. Cyril asserting that the Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son

Similarly, St. John Damascene, while asserting that the Holy Spirit does not originate from the Son, nevertheless expresses the ontological relationship between the Son and Holy Spirit in ways that affirm the Son’s mediating role in the Being of the Spirit. In terms of water, he states that the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is as water from a fountain (the Father), which flows in a stream (the Son), to a lake (the Spirit). In terms of fire, he describes that divine relationship as the fire of one torch (the Father), passed to a second torch (the Son), which finally lights a third torch (the Spirit).

The witness of the Fathers can be multiplied, but that’s not my express purpose here.

Is there any way to reconcile the Eastern Pneumatology with the Western teaching on filioque?

It might seem like quoting the Fathers would be sufficient. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In the first millennium, the only concern (as expressed by certain Greek monks in the time of St. Maximos the Confessor, and by St. Photius) was preserving the Arche of the Father. This matter was unofficially settled by St. Maximos in his time, and was definitively settled at the Council of Lyons and affirmed by the Council Florence, where the idea of two sources of the Spirit was condemned by both East and West (irregardless of the temporary duration of the union).

But two important circumstances still left the matter unresolved:

1. The language barrier between East and West. Despite the orthodox intentions of the Council of Lyons and Florence, the decrees were still drafted according to Latin sensibilities. There was still a seeming lack of acknowledgement on the distinction between proienai and ekporeusai. The important thing to remember is that this distinction was recognized in the time of St. Maximos the Confessor, which helped to settle the issue on the Arche of the Father at that time. But for whatever reason, perhaps due to polemics, this understanding was forgotten since the time of St. Photius. This spiritual fruit of understanding has since been renewed, as reflected by the U.S. Orthodox-Catholic consultation (usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml) and the official Clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory (ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM). Unfortunately, not many have read them.
2. New developments in the Eastern argument, which did not exist in the Church of the first millennium.
   Because of polemic reactions against Latin scholasticism – introduced into the East not by Latins, but by Easterns themselves – a new argument against filioque developed in the second millennium. Whereas the only concern in the first millennium was merely the affirmation of the Arche of the Father, the Essence/Energy concept was inserted into the debate in response to the Latin scholastic insistence on the simplicity of God.

CONTINUED