Eastern understanding of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity

[Madaglan]

I’ve yet to find a single early Greek Father that described the Holy Spirit proceeding apart from the Son. I’ve heard some accounts of Photius describing it like this, what I call the “Photian Fork”, but I haven’t seen anything earlier than him that suggests such a thing.

Peace and God bless!

Yeah, I see that statement like saying the Son is eternally begotten apart from the Holy Spirit. Doesn’t make any sense to Orthodox or Catholics.

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Let me just repeat myself yet again because it is so good for my blood pressure to do so: not apart from the Son, but neither from the son, but rather through the Son. Are we clear?

 

[Vico]

There is the creed of 325 A.D. and then the creed of 381 A.D., which only came to be accepted at Chalcedon in 451 A.D, which was after the Tome of Leo and the letter of Pope St. Leo to Bishop St. Turibius of Astoga 447 A.D. expressing the hypostatic procession:

Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church points this out:

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. **But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,**76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father *through *the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.​

77 Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.
78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302.
79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.
80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850.
DS = Denzinger Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (Handbook of Creeds and Definitions)
AG = Ad gentes, Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity, 7 December 1965​

AG 2. The pilgrim Church is missionary by her very nature, since it is from the mission of the Son and the mission of the Holy Spirit that she draws her origin, in accordance with the decree of God the Father. (Cf. Dogmatic constitution, “Lumen Gentium,” 1) This decree, however, flows from the “fount - like love” or charity of God the Father who, being the “principle without principle” from whom the Son is begotten and Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, freely creating us on account of His surpassing and merciful kindness and graciously calling us moreover to share with Him His life and His cry, has generously poured out, and does not cease to pour out still, His divine goodness. Thus He who created all things may at last be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), bringing about at one and the same time His own glory and our happiness. But it pleased God to call men to share His life, not just singly, apart from any mutual bond, but rather to mold them into a people in which His sons, once scattered abroad might be gathered together (cf. John 11:52).

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The only problem with the Catholic Catechism on that score is that the Orthodox East does not teach the procession of the Spirit “from the Father through the Son” as a doctrine and the Catechism suggests that “from the Son” and “through the Son” are the same.

They’re not the same in terms of the dogmatic imperative of the former.

The CCC’s position on that is a Latin Catholic one which doesn’t really take into account the actual teaching of the East on this matter i.e. that it is entirely unnecessary, from the standpoint of the Christian East, to insist on “through the Son” in Triadology. That is something Eastern Catholics have done, but it is different from what the Orthodox East teaches.

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

The only problem with the Catholic Catechism on that score is that the Orthodox East does not teach the procession of the Spirit “from the Father through the Son” as a doctrine and the Catechism suggests that “from the Son” and “through the Son” are the same.

They’re not the same in terms of the dogmatic imperative of the former.

The CCC’s position on that is a Latin Catholic one which doesn’t really take into account the actual teaching of the East on this matter i.e. that it is entirely unnecessary, from the standpoint of the Christian East, to insist on “through the Son” in Triadology. That is something Eastern Catholics have done, but it is different from what the Orthodox East teaches.

Alex

We’ll definitely see this explained better to us in the Ukrainian Catechism. I’m looking forward to it.

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Understandably my preference is for those in obedience and communion with the See of Peter…but that’s fascinating nonetheless.

 

[Ghosty]

The only problem with the Catholic Catechism on that score is that the Orthodox East does not teach the procession of the Spirit “from the Father through the Son” as a doctrine and the Catechism suggests that “from the Son” and “through the Son” are the same.

They’re not the same in terms of the dogmatic imperative of the former.

The CCC’s position on that is a Latin Catholic one which doesn’t really take into account the actual teaching of the East on this matter i.e. that it is entirely unnecessary, from the standpoint of the Christian East, to insist on “through the Son” in Triadology. That is something Eastern Catholics have done, but it is different from what the Orthodox East teaches.

Alex

This is a concern I have about the modern Eastern Orthodox position, actually. I think it departs from the teaching of the Eastern Fathers in the interest of putting up a wall against the perceived error of the filioque.

Heck, my main reason for defending the theology of the filioque (not its insertion into the Creed) is simply to defend the many great Eastern theologians who taught the foundations of it. IIRC, it was the abundance of Eastern Fathers cited that led Bessarion to end up backing the Union of Florence; he wasn’t so much convinced by the “theological arguments” advanced by the Scholastic Latins as he was with the fact that the Latins were calling on pretty much all the greatest Greek Fathers for support, and their detractors were simply calling all such citations interpolations (even when these words appeared in the texts the Greeks themselves brought to the Council).

This isn’t to say that the filioque is immediately clear, or that it can’t be understood in a heretical way. It’s just that to say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed (not originate as from a source) in some way, eternally and Personally, from the Son seems to deny the highest Trinitarian theology the Fathers produced, and which the Greek Fathers tended to put so beautifully. St. John Damascene’s description of the tree, the branch, and the fruit is both poetic and profound, and I hate to see it implied to be “heretical” by those who deny the filioque.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Yeah, I see that statement like saying the Son is eternally begotten apart from the Holy Spirit. Doesn’t make any sense to Orthodox or Catholics.

Precisely. In fact, one of the key “supports” of the filioque is the notion that the Son receives all that the Father has in His “begetting”, and this includes the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit obviously has his sole Source in the Father, as the Father is the Source of all Divinity, but He is certainly poured out in the begetting of the Son, and “from” the Son, in the sense that fruit is from the tree, but grows from the branch as the tree gives itself (its life and essence) to the branch; likewise, the branch lives by and in putting forth fruit, from the life and essence of the tree (the branch that won’t bear fruit is dead and is pruned away).

To me this kind of imagery is the best explaination of the Trinity (though obviously no explaination is sufficient), and it comes from the likes of St. John of Damascus, not Latin Scholastics. It seems a shame for such teachings to be thrown out or ignored by modern Eastern Christians, in favor of modern counter-arguments to the filioque which often rival the most dry Latin theology in technicality and abstraction, when it is our heritage.

Peace and God bless!

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Well it certainly sounds to me like we’re all in favor of replacing Filioque with per Filium. I’m ready for a vote!

 

[Madaglan]

Precisely. In fact, one of the key “supports” of the filioque is the notion that the Son receives all that the Father has in His “begetting”, and this includes the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit obviously has his sole Source in the Father, as the Father is the Source of all Divinity, but He is certainly poured out in the begetting of the Son, and “from” the Son, in the sense that fruit is from the tree, but grows from the branch as the tree gives itself (its life and essence) to the branch; likewise, the branch lives by and in putting forth fruit, from the life and essence of the tree (the branch that won’t bear fruit is dead and is pruned away).

To me this kind of imagery is the best explaination of the Trinity (though obviously no explaination is sufficient), and it comes from the likes of St. John of Damascus, not Latin Scholastics. It seems a shame for such teachings to be thrown out or ignored by modern Eastern Christians, in favor of modern counter-arguments to the filioque which often rival the most dry Latin theology in technicality and abstraction, when it is our heritage.

Peace and God bless!

I don’t think the Eastern Christians ignore this language. They just understand it in the context of eternal manifestation, distinct from the Holy Spirit’s proceeding (ekporousis) which refers to origination.

 

[Vico]

The only problem with the Catholic Catechism on that score is that the Orthodox East does not teach the procession of the Spirit “from the Father through the Son” as a doctrine and the Catechism suggests that “from the Son” and “through the Son” are the same.

They’re not the same in terms of the dogmatic imperative of the former.

The CCC’s position on that is a Latin Catholic one which doesn’t really take into account the actual teaching of the East on this matter i.e. that it is entirely unnecessary, from the standpoint of the Christian East, to insist on “through the Son” in Triadology. That is something Eastern Catholics have done, but it is different from what the Orthodox East teaches.

Alex

Hypostasis = Person.

St. Gregory Palamas taught that generation and procession are hypostatic properties of the Father alone so the Son does not share in the existential procession of origin of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the hypostases of the Father and the Son would be one and the same hypostasis. There is fear in Orthodoxy that Catholic dogma has gone astray on this point.

St. John of Damascus wrote (John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, in Writings, Catholic University of America, Fathers of the Church, vol. 377, Washington D.C., 1958):

“Neither do we say that the Spirit is from (ek) the Son, but we call Him the Spirit of (de) the Son” [pg 141 B]

"He is the Spirit of the Son, not as being from Him but as proceeding through Him from the Father " … “for the Father alone is Cause (aition)” [pg 148 B]

From Council of Florence 1439:
Note: Latin subsistere, to support

“…we declare that what the 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.** And since all that the Father has, the Father Himself, in begetting, has given to His Only-Begotten Son, with the exception of Fatherhood, the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son Himself has from the Father eternally, by Whom He was begotten also eternally.”

Nobody should be confused on the terminology and what are acceptable statements from the Orthodox and Catholic:

ekporev-: to come out
proinai, procedit: to proceed
pemps-: to send

Catholic​

1 Ekporev-: Procession of the Spirit from the Father only (aiton, principle)
2 Procedit: Procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son
3 Procedit: Procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son
4 Procedit, pemps-: Mission of the Spirit from the Father through the Son
5 Procedit, pemps-: Mission of the Spirit from the Father and the Son

No. 3 is considered to be a derivation by some Orthodox; unacceptable unless “and” means “through”.

Orthodox​

1 Ekporev-: Procession of the Spirit from the Father only (aition, principle)
2 Proinai: Procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son
3 -----
4 Proinai, pemps-: Mission of the Spirit from the Father through the Son
5 Proinai, pemps-: Mission of the Spirit from the Father and the Son

The Catholic Catechism does recognize that the meaning can be mangled with rigidity, implying that the expressions are not always equivalent:
“This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.”
Metropolitan John Zizioulas said:
The “golden rule” must be Saint Maximos the Confessor’s explanation concerning Western pneumatology: by professing the filioque our Western brethren do not wish to introduce another αἴτον [aiton] in God’s being except the Father, and a mediating role of the Son in the origination of the Spirit is not to be limited to the divine Economy, but relates also to the divine οὐσία [ousia]. If East and West can repeat these two points together in our time, this would provide sufficient basis for a rapprochement between the two traditions.
– Being as Communion, p 54.

Note: ousia = being.

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t think the Eastern Christians ignore this language. They just understand it in the context of eternal manifestation, distinct from the Holy Spirit’s proceeding (ekporousis) which refers to origination.

Most discussions I’ve read on this subject talk about temporal manifestation, because eternal manifestation is precisely what the filioque teaches; the Latins have never asserted that ekporousis is from the Son, and have in fact explicitely denied it at every turn (St. Augustine gave perhaps the best explaination of this).

As Vico’s post demonstrates, the big problem is that “proceed” doesn’t mean ekporousis, it means proinai. It is technically incorrect to refer to ekporousis as proceed, since procession simply means “moving from”, and has no implication of origin. Of course, there is no Latin word that means ekporousis, and therein lies the origin of the problem. The irony is that Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, when saying the Creed in English, quite simply aren’t saying what the Greek Creed says.

Peace and God bless!

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Not to derail - yes to apply and enrich - this discussion, Trinitarian heresies stateside have gone so far you have people feminizing the Holy Spirit, making the Trinity Father, Mother and Son. Not going to name names, but one’s last name rhymes with yawn.

 

[Madaglan]

Most discussions I’ve read on this subject talk about temporal manifestation, because eternal manifestation is precisely what the filioque teaches; the Latins have never asserted that ekporousis is from the Son, and have in fact explicitely denied it at every turn (St. Augustine gave perhaps the best explaination of this).

As Vico’s post demonstrates, the big problem is that “proceed” doesn’t mean ekporousis, it means proinai. It is technically incorrect to refer to ekporousis as proceed, since procession simply means “moving from”, and has no implication of origin. Of course, there is no Latin word that means ekporousis, and therein lies the origin of the problem. The irony is that Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, when saying the Creed in English, quite simply aren’t saying what the Greek Creed says.

Peace and God bless!

Hi Ghosty,

You may be interested in this essay: sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

If you look about 3/5 way down to the paragraph beginning with “Sadly, the insertion of the filioque…” you will see where the author writes about the energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit–both temporal and eternal–through the Son and as divine energy, not as person.

I understand that “procession” is derivative of the Latin procedere, and I catch your point about the Latin having no equivalent of ekporousis. While from an etymological standpoint, the English “proceeds” is cognate to the Latin word procedit, I believe English-speaking Eastern Orthodox (and many Eastern Catholics) understand and use “proceeds” in their discourse with the meaning of ekporousis, similarly with other theological terms like “person” (hypostasis), “consubstantial” (homoousios), et cetera.

 

[johnpfmcguire]

I understand that “procession” is derivative of the Latin procedere, and I catch your point about the Latin having no equivalent of ekporousis. While from an etymological standpoint, the English “proceeds” is cognate to the Latin word procedit, I believe English-speaking Eastern Orthodox (and many Eastern Catholics) understand and use “proceeds” in their discourse with the meaning of ekporousis, similarly with other theological terms like “person” (hypostasis), “consubstantial” (homoousios), et cetera.

Very good. You should be (or at the least tell this to) a bishop and help get this all sorted out already!

 

[mardukm]

"He is the Spirit of the Son, not as being from Him but as proceeding through Him from the Father " … “for the Father alone is Cause (aition)” [pg 148 B]

From Council of Florence 1439:
Note: Latin subsistere, to support

“…we declare that what the 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.** And since all that the Father has, the Father Himself, in begetting, has given to His Only-Begotten Son, with the exception of Fatherhood, the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son Himself has from the Father eternally, by Whom He was begotten also eternally.”

I think this introduced a complication. The Latins distinguished between “Source” and “cause” in the Decree. But the Greeks did not normally do so. I suspect that when the Latin Fathers of Florence wrote “the Son also is the cause according to the Greeks,” they assumed an Aristotelian distinction of Causes, which may not have been evident to some of the Greeks (particularly Mark of Ephesus).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Hi Ghosty,

You may be interested in this essay: sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

If you look about 3/5 way down to the paragraph beginning with “Sadly, the insertion of the filioque…” you will see where the author writes about the energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit–both temporal and eternal–through the Son and as divine energy, not as person.

Todd’s essay introduces a much more serious problem, however, in calling the Holy Spirit a Divine Energy. The Holy Spirit is not, and can never be, Divine Energy. Divine Energy is the property of Divine Nature, Its activity and manifestation. The Holy Spirit can not “be Divine Energy”, the Holy Spirit posesses Divine Energy.

Think about it, if the Holy Spirit were Divine Energy, He would not be a unique Person. St. John of Damascus says this:

Further, the true doctrine teaches that the Deity is simple and has one simple energy, good and energising in all things, just as the sun’s ray, which warms all things and energises in each in harmony with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having obtained this form of energy from God, its Maker.

The Holy Spirit energizes, but is not Himself energy.

I understand that “procession” is derivative of the Latin procedere, and I catch your point about the Latin having no equivalent of ekporousis. While from an etymological standpoint, the English “proceeds” is cognate to the Latin word procedit, I believe English-speaking Eastern Orthodox (and many Eastern Catholics) understand and use “proceeds” in their discourse with the meaning of ekporousis, similarly with other theological terms like “person” (hypostasis), “consubstantial” (homoousios), et cetera.

Yes, it is of course intended with this meaning. I’m just pointing out that, properly speaking, it doesn’t carry that meaning, and it is being twisted a bit by using it in that way. I bring this up only to point out the difficulty in translation, and the approximations and bending that must be done to accomodate ideas.

Ironically, we could say “originates from the Father”, and this would carry the meaning of ekporousis, but this is not done for some reason. Instead the incorrect word is used, the very Latin-based word that allows, in its vagueness, for the filioque to be non-heretical (since proceed does not carry the connotation of origination).

In the past, “procedere” was incorrectly translated (into Greek) as “ekporousis” only, while both “ekporousis” and “proinai” were translated as “procedere”. This led to a lot of confusion about what exactly was the problem with the filioque, from the Greek perspective. Now the “Greeks” continue the same linguistic error in the other direction.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Pitcharan]

Consider a very simple task – ‘throw’. To perform it, one must firstly know some details like what / where to throw, decide to do it and then do it. This is true of every task and we can easily see that there are three common basic elements that constitute a task – Knowledge, Decision and Implementation. Thus, whenever something is done, it involves discerning, deciding and doing.

The HOLY TRINITY comprises three persons in ONE GODHEAD and this is exactly how they function: The Father decides (wills), the Son does and the Holy Spirirt discerns
• The Father wills and controls everything for good
• The Son obediently implements the Father’s will, be it creation, redemption or judgment
• The Holy Spirit counsels the Father and whoever the Father chooses by discerning truth, exposing falsehood and convicting guilt.
“… and the three agree as one” (1Jn 5:8)

 

[Ghosty]

Consider a very simple task – ‘throw’. To perform it, one must firstly know some details like what / where to throw, decide to do it and then do it. This is true of every task and we can easily see that there are three common basic elements that constitute a task – Knowledge, Decision and Implementation. Thus, whenever something is done, it involves discerning, deciding and doing.

The HOLY TRINITY comprises three persons in ONE GODHEAD and this is exactly how they function: The Father decides (wills), the Son does and the Holy Spirirt discerns
• The Father wills and controls everything for good
• The Son obediently implements the Father’s will, be it creation, redemption or judgment
• The Holy Spirit counsels the Father and whoever the Father chooses by discerning truth, exposing falsehood and convicting guilt.

“… and the three agree as one” (1Jn 5:8)

The problem with this idea is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one will, one intellect, and one power. The Son is not the power, the Holy Spirit is not the intellect. In short, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of a whole, but each is the very say same whole.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cecilianus]

Would I be understanding the distinction between the “economic Trinity” and “immanent Trinity” correctly if I said that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ekphoreusai) from the Father alone in terms of the “immanent Trinity”, but that He (apologies for the male pronoun, with all due respect to someone whose first name rhymes with pot ) proceeds (proinai) from both the Father and the Son in terms of the economic Trinity? In other words, we must reject the teaching of Karl Rahner that “the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity”?

I’m not sure I understand Rahner’s distinction here, and I’m far below the intellectual level of everybody else on this discussion, especially Marduk, so I might be totally off-base - but this is how I’m trying to understand the problem. It’s not a distinction natural to the East, but it might be useful to understanding.