Eastern understanding of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity

[Vico]

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

Isn’t language a bear! Consider Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

The causes of Aristotle are: material (physical), formal (intention), efficient (agent), and final (purpose). For Aristotle all substance is material (form and matter) but for St. Thomas Aquinas there is a distinction between the essence of a composite substance, which is matter and form, and the essence of a simple substance (finite immaterial substances), which is its form alone.

St. Thomas Aquinas added a fifth exemplar cause to those of Aristotle, and wrote in Summa Theologica, Query 44:
“Reply to Objection 4. Since God is the efficient, the exemplar and the final cause of all things, and since primary matter is from Him, it follows that the first principle of all things is one in reality. But this does not prevent us from mentally considering many things in Him, some of which come into our mind before others.”
At the council of Lyons II, we have: eternally from the Father and the Son, and not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by a unique spiration proceeds.

“aeternaliter ex Patre et Filio, non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus, sed unica spiratione procedit”

Denzinger 850: clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/cvq.htm

Note the adverb tanquam “as” which means: as much as, so as, just as, like as, as if, so to speak.

Latin principium means: a beginning, commencement, origin.

Latin procedit (present indicitive active) from procedo: to go before, go forward, advance, proceed, march on, move forward, go forth.

So it is “not as if from two origins, but as if from one origin, not by two spirations but by a unique spiration goes forth”

 

[Madaglan]

Would Basil have anathematized someone for not making a distinction between essence and energy? All Basil’s statement amounts to is saying that there is an infinite difference between God and His creation, and that God actually acts upon creation to make it like Himself. What I mean by technical language is something like the role that hypostasis and ousia play in Basil and the other Cappadocians.

Palamas makes a dogmatic distinction between essence and energy in God that is parallel to the distinction between hypostasis and ousia. The energies are God, but are not the essence. Through the energy we know God.

If all you want to say is that God’s action upon creation are His own and that they are not an emanation of His essence then it would be consistent with Basil. The world exists and it isn’t an emanation from God; it is deified without being an emanation from the Father. But that seems to be a superfluous statement, all you are saying is that God acts without emanation. That is only a repudiation of platonism. The west would agree with that. They will recognize that the created world was actually created by God without being an emanation from God. They will recognize that God’s actions upon creation are a reflection of his own nature. We are made like God without actually receiving the essence.

Thank you for the elucidation.

I see St. Basil as making a distinction between what is beyond our reach to know, God’s essence, and how we come to know God, through his uncreated energies operating in creation. From what I can tell, St. Gregory Palamas believes that essence and energies are integral realities of the Trinity. I sense from the Catholic side that “essence” and “energy” are seen more like how God’s “anger” is described by Orthodox–i.e. a reality but not of God’s nature. God may be described as having wrath and becoming very angry, but being dispassionate and impassible by nature, He cannot by nature be or become wrathful. Likewise, for Catholics, it seems that God has essence and energy, but in the Godhead being completely simple, God cannot by nature have essence or energy. Does this sound right?

 

[Ghosty]

Thank you for the elucidation.

I see St. Basil as making a distinction between what is beyond our reach to know, God’s essence, and how we come to know God, through his uncreated energies operating in creation. From what I can tell, St. Gregory Palamas believes that essence and energies are integral realities of the Trinity. I sense from the Catholic side that “essence” and “energy” are seen more like how God’s “anger” is described by Orthodox–i.e. a reality but not of God’s nature. God may be described as having wrath and becoming very angry, but being dispassionate and impassible by nature, He cannot by nature be or become wrathful. Likewise, for Catholics, it seems that God has essence and energy, but in the Godhead being completely simple, God cannot by nature have essence or energy. Does this sound right?

It’s hard to say, because the essence/energy distinction literally isn’t made in Latin theology, not even using the language. Rather, what’s spoken of is that God acts by His Essence (essence is a broader term in Latin theology, and encompasses what Byzantine theology calls energy). Sanctifying Grace, for example, is the Divine Essence/Nature in Latin theology (it is called “created” simply because it is something new in the creature, as in “made new creations in Christ”).

Rather than focusing on God when it comes to participation, Latin theology instead emphasizes participation according to the nature of the thing participating, so it would be said that we participate in the Divine Essence, but according to our finite mode of existence, and without losing our own essence. The distinction, then, is made on the side of the creatures participating, rather than within the Godhead.

I think a fair description would be that Byzantine theology asks “How can God share Himself with creatures”, and Latin theology asks “How can creatures share in the Godhead”. The Byzantine answer, then, focuses on what about God makes this possible, and the Latin answer focuses on what about creatures makes this possible.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Madaglan]

I think a fair description would be that Byzantine theology asks “How can God share Himself with creatures”, and Latin theology asks “How can creatures share in the Godhead”. The Byzantine answer, then, focuses on what about God makes this possible, and the Latin answer focuses on what about creatures makes this possible.

Peace and God bless!

Thanks for this information. I’ve never heard it put this way before, so I’ll keep note of it.

 

[Cecilianus]

I think a fair description would be that Byzantine theology asks “How can God share Himself with creatures”, and Latin theology asks “How can creatures share in the Godhead”. The Byzantine answer, then, focuses on what about God makes this possible, and the Latin answer focuses on what about creatures makes this possible.

Peace and God bless!

If I may be bold, is that not a fair description of the liturgical differences between East and West as well - that we re-present the Incarnation from the viewpoint of God coming down and becoming man, while the West re-presents the Incarnation from the viewpoint of earth receiving God and being deified?

That would be why we veil the mystery of the Eucharist with a wall of icons, all representing the transfigured, heavenly reality, while the Latins veil the mystery with silence (the reverent awe of the shepherds in the cave at Bethlehem), and use “earthly”, realistic-looking statues. We emphasize the heavenly, apophatic nature of theology by emphasizing paradox in our Liturgy (“for You are God, ineffable, inconceivable, incomprehensible, ever-existing yet ever the same, etc”) while the Latin (Tridentine) Liturgy has an exact precision to it emphasizing the cataphatic, dogmatic, formulaic nature of theology (“Qui cum Unigenito Filio tuo et Spiritu Sancto unus es Deus, unus es Dominus: non in unius singularitate Personae, sed in unius Trinitate substantiae etc.” from the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity). We are less uniform and in a way more informal in the congregation’s actions during the Liturgy (the choir or cantors face north and south while the congregation faces east, people walk around venerating icons even during the Liturgy, and there is much more movement on the part of the clergy than in the Latin Mass), just like we would be walking around our Heavenly home, while the Latins express awe by remaining still and silent in an environment which is externally either drab or gaudy (but very earthly in either case).

And this would be why the East is ontological in its theology why the West expresses it in a more juridical, legal manner.

Just a thought that’s been growing on me for a couple years - anybody else see the comparison?