Dropping the Filoque

[Formosus]

No, Gregory Palamas does argue specifically that the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit does not proceed eternally from the Son or through the Son. Just the energies. I did a research paper on it last semester.

 

[mardukm]

No, Gregory Palamas does argue specifically that the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit does not proceed eternally from the Son or through the Son. Just the energies. I did a research paper on it last semester.

Thanks for the info. That’s interesting. As you did your paper on it, I hope you can explain something which I don’t quite understand: Namely, how does one support the claim that “just the energies” proceed eternally through the Son without causing division WITHIN the Godhead? The Essence can certainly be distinguished from the Energies (in an epistemological sense, not an ontological sense), but I don’t see how the Energies can be separated from hypostasis. If the hypostasis does not proceed through the Son, then NOTHING of the hypostases should be said to proceed through the Son, including the Energies. It’s like cutting off my arm.

I have read a little of Palamas not so long ago. From what little I’d read, he only seems to insist only what was taught at Blachernae. Granted, my understanding as an Oriental is not nearly as deep as the Latin or Eastern intricacies on the matter. It appears to me, given my meager understanding as an Oriental, that what you are saying Palamas taught is slightly different from the teaching of Blachernae, but represents a real development (the “different though the same” standard that Latins use).

Can you show me a quote specifically from Palamas that:

1. The Hypostasis does not proceed through the Son
2. ONLY or JUST the Energies proceed through the Son.

I would propose that we stick with St. Basil, who stated that the Hypostasis of the Spirit is from God, and within that Hypostasis, he distinguishes the role of the Son (as manifester) and the Father (as source). But note that St. Basil does not cut off the Son from the hypostasis of the Spirit. He considers that manifestation of the Spirit through the Son as an indivisible part of the hypostasis of the Spirit. If one can reconcile Palamas with what St. Basil taught, that would be great. But if you are saying Palamas sought to cut off the Son from the hypostasis of the Spirit (St. Basil only sought to distinguish the roles of the Father and Son in the hypostasis, not cut the son off from the hypostasis), as modern EO are wont to claim, then I think we may have a problem (not insurmountable, by God’s grace, but a dilemma nonetheless). What the Latins still need to do, IMHO, is to make a clearer distinction of the roles of the Father and Son in the hypostasis of the Spirit; but the current rhetoric of (some) EO to completely cut off the Son from the hypostasis of the Spirit is, IMHO, unpatristic and unacceptable.

Regardless, I think that the Fathers of the first millenium never delved THAT deeply into the Mysteries of the Trinity. If we just stuck with the standards of the first millenium, maybe there would be a better chance of unity?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

No, Gregory Palamas does argue specifically that the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit does not proceed eternally from the Son or through the Son. Just the energies. I did a research paper on it last semester.

I too would like a quote on this, as I’ve read St. Gregory Palamas as well and what I’ve seen is that he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds energetically through/from the Son, not that the Divine Energies go through the Son to the Holy Spirit. There’s a huge difference between the two, so I’m curious to see where he definitively says what you’re saying.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

I did some reading the past two hours and I found this, the only thing I could from Palamas coming close to the claims of modern EO:

“We do not say that the Son is from the Father in as much as He is begotten by the divine essence, but rather in as much as He is begotten by the Father as a person. For the essence is common to the three persons, but begetting is proper to the Father personally. That is why the Son is not begotten by the Spirit. Consequently the Spirit is also from the Father; He possesses the divine essence, proceeding from the person of the Father. For the essence is always and absolutely common to the three persons. Therefore the act of spiration is proper to the Father as a person and the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, for the Son does not have the personal properties of the Father.”

So, “the Spirit does not proceed from the Son.” But this is not a denial that the Spirit proceeds through the Son.

I found the quote above from an essay online on Palamas: geocities.com/apotheoun/paper05b#_ftn6

An interesting thing about the essay is this statement: “Now, since these two things (i.e., generation and procession) are unique personal properties of the Father, it follows that any type of filioque at the level of essence or hypostasis is to be rejected as theologically heretical.”(emphasis added)

The interesting thing about it is that the claim gives no direct quote from Palamas (whereas Palamas is easily quoted in other places). It appears the claim that Palamas taught that the Son has no role in the Hypostases (or Person) of the Spirit is not a literal teaching of Palamas, but is merely an interpretation of Palamas’ teaching.

I’m willing to bet that the idea that “ONLY or JUST the energies proceeds through the Son” is likewise not a literal teaching of Palamas, but an interpretation. I’ve read enough of Palamas to know he indeed teaches that the energies proceed through the Son. But to say so to the exclusion of the Son in the eternal Hypostasis of the Spirit would seem to be a modern EO novelty.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Taboric_Light]

Marduk,

Unfortunately, I am a little rusty. I shudder to think about how much reading I have ahead of me because of this discussion.

While St. Palamas uses beautiful images to express the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I do not think he would ever say or agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Son; at least not from the perspective of Eastern theology as it was formed by the Cappadocian fathers. Using the Eastern grammer and vocabulary of theology, if one says that the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically through the Son it is the same as saying He proceeds existentially through the Son. If you say that then the Son has just been made a cause of the Holy Spirit and the monarchy of the Father has been violated.

This is how I understand it in a nutshell:

1. The Father as sole source of the Trinity has as his own particular properties begetting and spirating.
2. The Son is begotten in love and the Spirit is the Love of the Father and Son which means that the Spirit’s spiration is simultanous with the Son’s begetting.
3. Hence, both the Son and the Spirit originate from the Father.
4. The Spirit is given to the Son (“all that the Father has is mine”) having already originated hypostatically from the Father.
5. Therefore, when the Spirit is returned to the Father from the Son this is only energetically.
6. The action of the Holy Spirit (not the Spirit Himself) between the Father and Son is an action of the immanent Trinity, not the origination of the Spirit.

That was much harder to articulate than I thought it would be. Once again reminding me of the transcendence and unknowability of the Holy Trinity that I apparently had forgotten.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

In Christ through Mary

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Taboric Light,

Thank you for the thoughtful response. The matter is of great concern to me, since unity is of great concern to me.

While St. Palamas uses beautiful images to express the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I do not think he would ever say or agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Son; at least not from the perspective of Eastern theology as it was formed by the Cappadocian fathers. Using the Eastern grammer and vocabulary of theology, if one says that the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically through the Son it is the same as saying He proceeds existentially through the Son. If you say that then the Son has just been made a cause of the Holy Spirit and the monarchy of the Father has been violated.

This is how I understand it in a nutshell:

1. The Father as sole source of the Trinity has as his own particular properties begetting and spirating.
2. The Son is begotten in love and the Spirit is the Love of the Father and Son which means that the Spirit’s spiration is simultanous with the Son’s begetting.
3. Hence, both the Son and the Spirit originate from the Father.
4. The Spirit is given to the Son (“all that the Father has is mine”) having already originated hypostatically from the Father.
5. Therefore, when the Spirit is returned to the Father from the Son this is only energetically.
6. The action of the Holy Spirit (not the Spirit Himself) between the Father and Son is an action of the immanent Trinity, not the origination of the Spirit.

That was a wonderful explanation. I’ll work backwards.

The first part of #6 I recognize as patristic. The second clause (“not the origination of the Spirit”) is a statement borne of the debates between the Byzantines and Latins, and an unnecessary addition to the patristic doctrine.

The clause “this is only energetically” in #5 goes beyond my Oriental sensibilities. It is, to me, a later Eastern development. All I recognize as an Oriental is the very mere fact that the Spirit is returned to the Father from the Son in love. How that occurs is a Mystery, and the additional clause is a development that should not be required to be believe by all Christians.

The greater discussion would occur at #4. The Hypostasis/the Person/the unique identity of the Holy Spirit within the Godhead from my reading of the Fathers (granted,not from my reading of post-schism Eastern Fathers) consists in being FROM the Father and being THROUGH the Son. In this hypostasis of the Spirit, the role of the Son is DISTINGUISED from the Role of the Father, but is not removed. The superessential Essence of the Trinity has its Source from the Father ALONE - but the unique hypostasis of each Person of the Trinity does not consist SOLELY of the superessential Essence. OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD BE NO DISTINCTION OF PERSONS.

Thus, with respect to the Spirit, I would revise #4 to say that the Holy Spirit originated (ekporeusai) hypostatically from the Father, and proceeded (proienai) hypostatically through the Son.

That is the teaching I have received as an Oriental without benefit of development from post-Schism Eastern Fathers. I am fairly certain this is also the manner Chaldeans/ACOE understand the Trinitarian relationships, in their own unique language, of course.

It is apparent to me that there has been development in the East post-Schism. Blachernae stressed that the manifestation is through the Son. Palamas stressed that the energetic manifestation is through the Son. Modern EO have added the world “ONLY” to Palamas’ teaching, and have further developed the Eastern understanding further to say that the Son has absolutely no role in the hypostatic procession (i.e., origination from, and procession through) of the Spirit. All these developments have been borne out of the Eastern debate with the Latins over the Filioque, to which the Chaldeans, ACOE, Maronites, and the Oriental Orthodox were not a party.

Points #1 thru #3 are all standard patristic doctrine among all the apostolic Churches.

I believe unity on the matter can only occur this way:

1. Use the literal teaching of the Fathers of the first millenium as the standard for all Churches.
2. Recognize respectfully that developments have occured in certain Churches, without those Churches imposing those developments on other Churches.

What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It is apparent to me that there has been development in the East post-Schism. Blachernae stressed that the manifestation is through the Son. Palamas stressed that the energetic manifestation is through the Son. Modern EO have added the world “ONLY” to Palamas’ teaching, and have further developed the Eastern understanding further to say that the Son has absolutely no role in the hypostatic procession (i.e., origination from, and procession through) of the Spirit. All these developments have been borne out of the Eastern debate with the Latins over the Filioque, to which the Chaldeans, ACOE, Maronites, and the Oriental Orthodox were not a party.

I must be off for a few days (perhaps I will find time to drop by), so I wanted to add one last comment. I think I can accept the EO development as far as Palamas. I don’t think he was as dogmatic as modern EO about the distinctions within the Trinity. Brother Taboric Light, I acknowledge your statement that you don’t think St. Palamas would ever accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Son. But you express my whole point on the issue - that is an INTERPRETATION of St. Palamas that he never explicitly expressed. Thus, can I accept the EO developments as far as Palamas. Beyond that, I simply cannot in good conscience.

I believe the Eastern Fathers of Brest recognized this and were able in good conscience to return to Catholic communion. And I thank God that I am able to commune with my Byzantine brothers (as well as my Chaldean brothers), whereas outside of this one, holy Catholic Church, it would be impossible for me to do so.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

While St. Palamas uses beautiful images to express the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I do not think he would ever say or agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Son; at least not from the perspective of Eastern theology as it was formed by the Cappadocian fathers.

The problem with this is that at least one Cappadocian Father did explicitely teach hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, albeit not with the Son as Source (that alone belongs to the Father). St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote, in his treatise on the Trinity to Ablabius:

If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer;— that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another;— by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

That’s clearly the Son being a mediary between the Father and Holy Spirit, without removing the Father as Source. It’s also clearly about the hypostatic procession, as that’s the subject of the passage in question.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Formosus]

“You should understand this teaching in this sense: it is the powers and essential energies of God which pour out, not the divine hypostasis of the Spirit” - St. Gregory Palamas

“The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God; nevertheless, according to essence and hypostasis it belongs but does not proceed, whereas, according to energy, it belongs and proceeds."- St. Gregory Palamas

For Palamas, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son by Hypostasis, then it confuses the Hypostasis of the Father and Son, since in Eastern theology the distinct attribute of the Father is as the source of the Trinity. If the Father and Son are both contributing to the Hypostasis of the Spirit, then it amounts to suggesting that the Father and Son are “homohypostatic”.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ghosty,

The problem with this is that at least one Cappadocian Father did explicitely teach hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, albeit not with the Son as Source (that alone belongs to the Father). St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote, in his treatise on the Trinity to Ablabius:

That’s clearly the Son being a mediary between the Father and Holy Spirit, without removing the Father as Source. It’s also clearly about the hypostatic procession, as that’s the subject of the passage in question.

That is a great quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa. If you have read EO critiques of the Orthodox-Catholic official colloquies and the Clarification issued from the Vatican several years back, they assign special criticism to the Catholic phrase “principal Cause,” as it gives the possibility of there being a mediate Cause of the Holy Spirit. Clearly, St. Gregory’s discussion and on the nature of causes and his explicit use of “First Cause” would expose that Father to the same criticism.

In his own critique of the Clarification, Metropolitan Zizioulas of Pergamon has plainly admitted that St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches that the “throughness” of the Son exists as part of the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, and not outside of it:
“Closely related to the question of the single cause is the problem of the exact meaning of the Son’s involvement in the procession of the Spirit. Saint Gregory of Nyssa explicitly admits a mediating role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Is this role to be expressed with the help of the preposition δία (through) the Son (εκ Πατρός δι 'Υιού), as Saint Maximus and other Patristic sources seem to suggest? The Vatican statement notes that this is the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox. I would agree with this, adding that the discussion should take place in the light of the single cause principle to which I have just referred.”

I would suggest that not only St. Gregory, but St. Basil teaches the same thing (as well as St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Damascene).

With regards to St. Palamas - I’m sure you have read him more than I have, so I was wondering if you could offer a direct quote from him indicating something along the lines that the Energies of the Holy Spirit are part of His Hypostasis (which is a patristic teaching, after all). I know that Palamas readily teaches that the energetic manifestation is through the Son, and with an explicit statement from him regarding the matter above, it would indicate that Palamas did not seek to remove the role of the Son in the Hypostasis of the Spirit. I know that there are those who interpret, or want to interpret, Palamas in the exact opposite sense, but I think if you can provide a statement on the matter given above, it would demonstrate that Palamas was not so strict on the matter as current EO suggest, or at least demonstrate that there is room in Palamas’ teaching for reconciliation with the Latins, Chaldeans/ACOE, and Oriental Orthodox on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

“You should understand this teaching in this sense: it is the powers and essential energies of God which pour out, not the divine hypostasis of the Spirit” - St. Gregory Palamas

“The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God; nevertheless, according to essence and hypostasis it belongs but does not proceed, whereas, according to energy, it belongs and proceeds."- St. Gregory Palamas

For Palamas, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son by Hypostasis, then it confuses the Hypostasis of the Father and Son, since in Eastern theology the distinct attribute of the Father is as the source of the Trinity. If the Father and Son are both contributing to the Hypostasis of the Spirit, then it amounts to suggesting that the Father and Son are “homohypostatic”.

Those quotes aren’t saying that the Divine Energies are mediated to the Holy Spirit, through the Son, however, which is what I was asking about (perhaps you never intended such an idea).

Nobody, East or West, is opposing the Father being the only Source, no is anyone saying that the Son “contributes” anything to the Spiration; what is said by the Latin teaching (and that of many Eastern Fathers) is that the Son participates (or mediates, to use the Cappadocian expression on the filioque) in the Personal Spiration of the Holy Spirit, not that He contributes something of His own to it. This is why Latins constantly stress “one principle and one Spiration”; if the Son were contributing rather than mediating/participating, there would be two principles and two Spirations.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

“You should understand this teaching in this sense: it is the powers and essential energies of God which pour out, not the divine hypostasis of the Spirit” - St. Gregory Palamas

“The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God; nevertheless, according to essence and hypostasis it belongs but does not proceed, whereas, according to energy, it belongs and proceeds."- St. Gregory Palamas

For Palamas, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son by Hypostasis, then it confuses the Hypostasis of the Father and Son, since in Eastern theology the distinct attribute of the Father is as the source of the Trinity. If the Father and Son are both contributing to the Hypostasis of the Spirit, then it amounts to suggesting that the Father and Son are “homohypostatic”.

First, I don’t think anyone is saying “the Holy proceeds from the Son by Hypostasis.” What we’re saying is “the Hypostasis of the Spirit proceeds THROUGH the Son.”

Second, your first quote doesn’t really solve anything. I think all it is saying is that the entire Being (Essence and Energy) of the Holy Spirit is not poured out in the temporal Economy, just the Energies. That’s certainly true, because the Essence cannot even be experienced by creatures. In one place, Palamas talks about the fact that there is no pouring out if there is no creature to receive. However, in the realm of Eternity, the procession through the Son (NOT from the Son) is a different thing, and I have a suspicion that maybe St. Palamas did not treat that question, since he was almost always concerned in his works about the Energies in the temporal economy, not in Eternity (which, I’m sure he did not want to delve into beyond what the Fathers in the first millenium had written).

Second, if Palamas is using ekporeusai in your second quote, then it doesn’t solve the problem. It’s simply saying that the Son is not the Source of the Holy Spirit, to which no one disagrees.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

ST. BASIL ON the ROLE OF THE SON IN THE HYPOSTASIS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

All quotes from De Trinitate:

“According to the coordination of words delivered in baptism, the relation of the Spirit to the Son is the same as that of the Son to the Father. And if the Spirit is co-ordinate with the Son, and the Son with the Father, it is obvious that the Spirit is also co-ordinate with the Father.”

“One moreover is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adoration of the blessed Trinity.”

“[Of the Holy Spirit,] the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-Begotten to the Spirit. Thus, there is both acknowledgement of the hypostasis and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost.”

“We shall now proceed to show that the Father does not first take “of whom” and then abandon “through whom” to the Son…these are the words of a writer not laying down a rule, but carefully distinguishing the hypostasis. The object of the Apostle in thus writing was not to introduce diversity of nature, but to exhibit the notion of Father and of Son as unconfounded.”
Comment: in other words “throughness” is a Hypostatic property of the Son.

St. Basil calls the Holy Spirit, “the origin of sanctification.” Simply put, this is a HYPOSTATIC property of the Holy Spirit. One cannot say that the “energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit is through the Son” (which is as far as St. Palamas claimed), and THEN conclude that the Son is cut off from the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit (which is the unpatristic interpretation foisted upon Palamas). In other words, if you admit that the Son is involved in the origin of the Sanctifying property (which is a HYPOSTATIC property) of the Holy Spirit, then you cannot claim that the Son is cut off from the Hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Some have accused St. Palamas of giving too much focus on the Essence of God, to the point of making an unacceptable division WITHIN the Godhead. But as I read more of Palamas, I see he does not do this. For instance, in one place, he writes, “all Essence is Being *, but not all Being is Essence.” In other places, he clearly distinguishes Essence from Hypostasis and Energy. And I think this is where my criticism in the modern EO rhetoric against filioque lies. Modern EO are practically equating Essence with Hypostasis to the point that they exclude the Energy from the Hypostasis - and this, not as a result of an application of patristic teaching, but because of an a priori belief that the Son has no role in the Hypostasis of the Spirit (in other words, as an overreaction in the Filioque debate). This exclusion of the Energy from Hypostasis can find no patristic support. But it is the only way that modern EO can get around the idea that the Son actually participates in the Hypostasis of the Spirit, as they have to admit, from patristic sources (as well as from St. Palamas) that the Energies of the Spirit comes THROUGH the Son (see one of my quotes from St. Basil above).

It can rightly be argued that the Son has no role in the origin of Essence of the Holy Spirit, but one cannot rightly or orthodoxly (is that a word?) argue thereby that the Son has no role in the origin of the PERSON (or hypostasis) of the Holy Spirit, because the Hypostasis of the Spirit does not consist of Essence alone (which would lead to modalism or an unacceptable division of Essence and Energies WITHIN the Godhead).

Sure, one can indeed argue that in temporal time (i.e., in the Economy), the hypostasis (that is, the entire Being) of the Holy Spirit does not flow through through the Son, but that is only because St. Palamas states that a flowing through cannot occur where nothing can receive. So his statment it is not a function of what occurs between the Son and Holy Spirit (i.e., not that the entire Hypostasis of the Spirit does not flow through the Son, or that ONLY the Energies flow through the Son), but rather a function of what the creature cannot receive. To think differently would admit change in the Godhead (as if the relationship of the Spirit to the Son is different in temporality from their relationship in Eternity).

I can’t believe I am now regularly attaching the word “St.” to Palamis’ name whereas several months ago, I could not bring myself to do so because he is not a “St.” in my Coptic Orthodox heritage; but as a Catholic, and after reading more about what he wrote regarding Essence and Energies, I am more inclined to see the orthodoxy of his teaching. Mind you, I’m still not comfortable with hesychast spirituality, as it is not Coptic spirituality, but that is not an issue that should cause division.

Blessings,
Marduk*

 

[Formosus]

I apologize I don’t have time to read all your post (have to get some sleep, off for a retreat tomorrow but its a 7hour drive). I would just say there was another quote in the book I used for those quotes that seemed to address the issue of whether the energies were part of the Hypostasis (which it would seem from the second quote that they are not). I do think here that St. Palamas is saying that the Energies proceed eternally, and not just temporally.

 

[Alethiaphile]

As usual, all the Roman apologists (Ghosty, Mardukm, et al) ignore the language of the western councils of Lyons and Florence, stating that Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “equally” and “as from one principle”, language which was unknown to St. Maximus the Confessor when he wrote about the filioque (and it was clear in any case he interpreted the filioque as referring only to the economic, not the eternal, procession of the HS), and which cannot in any way be reconciled with a procession “through the Son”. Hence, their constant citation of St. Maximus has no relevance whatsoever to the issue posed by later western teaching. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

The problem with this is that at least one Cappadocian Father did explicitely teach hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, albeit not with the Son as Source (that alone belongs to the Father). St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote, in his treatise on the Trinity to Ablabius:

That’s clearly the Son being a mediary between the Father and Holy Spirit, without removing the Father as Source. It’s also clearly about the hypostatic procession, as that’s the subject of the passage in question.

Peace and God bless!

That quote might support “through the Son”, but it does not in any way support “and the Son” “equally” and “as through one principle” as defined by Lyons and Florence. It is clear that for Gregory of Nyssa, the Son is at most an intermediary in the procession of the Holy Spirit. Therefore Gregory of Nyssa cannot be cited as supporting current western teaching on the Filioque, which must include the teachings of Lyons and Florence. Joe

 

[Ghosty]

As usual, all the Roman apologists (Ghosty, Mardukm, et al) ignore the language of the western councils of Lyons and Florence, stating that Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “equally” and “as from one principle”, language which was unknown to St. Maximus the Confessor when he wrote about the filioque (and it was clear in any case he interpreted the filioque as referring only to the economic, not the eternal, procession of the HS), and which cannot in any way be reconciled with a procession “through the Son”. Hence, their constant citation of St. Maximus has no relevance whatsoever to the issue posed by later western teaching. Joe

And you continue to ignore the fact that those expressions don’t mean what you insist on believing they mean. You keep bringing up an idea that has never, ever been supported in Latin theology, and expecting that those of us who have studied Latin theology will accept your obviously erroneous conclusions.

In case it needed to be said, Latins have always defended “as from one principle” alongside “through the Son”, and have always insisted on the Father being the Source of the Trinity. This was even said at Florence:

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, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.

You would have us believe that the Fathers of Florence contradicted themselves within a few sentences. I will continue to point out that both “one principle” and “through” have been supported side by side by the Latin theologians since the very beginning of the filioque issue.

I would also point out that “Roman Apologist” is a misnomer for both of us, but more especially for Mardukm (since he’s never been Roman, and never claimed to be). I’m an Apologist for Rome on this issue, and I find myself in the company of St. Maximos the Confessor on that note.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Madaglan]

And you continue to ignore the fact that those expressions don’t mean what you insist on believing they mean. You keep bringing up an idea that has never, ever been supported in Latin theology, and expecting that those of us who have studied Latin theology will accept your obviously erroneous conclusions.

In case it needed to be said, Latins have always defended “as from one principle” alongside “through the Son”, and have always insisted on the Father being the Source of the Trinity. This was even said at Florence:

You would have us believe that the Fathers of Florence contradicted themselves within a few sentences. I will continue to point out that both “one principle” and “through” have been supported side by side by the Latin theologians since the very beginning of the filioque issue.

I would also point out that “Roman Apologist” is a misnomer for both of us, but more especially for Mardukm (since he’s never been Roman, and never claimed to be). I’m an Apologist for Rome on this issue, and I find myself in the company of St. Maximos the Confessor on that note.

Peace and God bless!

Who or what is the “one principle”?

I know that the Latins teach that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the divine essence. But I’m a bit confused here. The Father is principle without principle; the Son, principle with principle. Is this “one principle,” if not the Father alone, then a combination of two principles into a third principle? It seems to me that there is a close identity between principle and hypostasis, and on this basis, this third principle, from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, is either a fourth or more person of the Trinity, or the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit himself–in other words, the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself, who is a combination of the Father and the Son.

Don’t mean to sound harsh there; it’s just how it sounds to me, since I can’t see how one principle can be reconciled with two hypostases.

.

 

[Madaglan]

FYI on the last post, I wasn’t personally claiming the Son as a principle. Rather, I was trying to look at it from the framework of Western Trinitarian theology as I understand it.

I notice, in looking at the CCC, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are considered one principle, not three principles, of creation. I wonder what is meant by this one principle here. Is the one principle perhaps one common divine will? (the CCC speaks of the three working together in creation).