S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
So the Holy Spirit receives his essence (directly) from the Son, but since the Son receives his essence from the Father, the Holy Spirit receives his essences from the Father and the Son, correct?
Filioque - Distinguishing the Essence and Person of the Holy Spirit
- Status
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
this combined with Mardukm’s response (assuming I’m understanding them correctly) have helped.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Wait…So what’'s the difference between how the Person of the Holy Spirit is brought about and his Essence?
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I think source means the Persons of the Trinity (Son + Holy Spirit) “originate” with the Father, and cause means how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
Dear Brother Marduk,
If the ‘unanimous teaching of the Fathers’ is thus, and I’ve never known you to say anything that you could not back up if you had to, then I must say that I disagree with the Fathers on this. And this is one of the reasons I changed my religion profile to say ‘…somewhat semi-Orthodox’.
Could it be that the real reason that East & West seem to disagree is not only because they do, but also because neither side really knows (or perhaps won’t tell) the whole truth.
The scripture says that Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit, so why could it not be said that the Son proceeded (or was begotten) from the Holy Spirit, rather than the other way around?
I really doubt that God wanted everything reveled to everyone. And when there is some perceived gap in our understanding we just have to fill that gap somehow, even if the only thing we have to fill it with is our own idea’s!
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Hello Swiss,Wait…So what’'s the difference between how the Person of the Holy Spirit is brought about and his Essence?
There are two things we speak of in God- nature and person
Nature is what you are- An alien comes to Earth and sees a strange creature (you) and asks, Hey,* What are you?* You answer- I’m a human being. You’re describing your nature. He asks, Who are you? You say, I’m John Smith. You’re describing, not a nature, but a subject- a person- a who.
In God, the nature or being of God is just one. Absolute existence without limit- That’s what God is (in essence); that’s why we say we believe in One God, not two or three- We worship a single being. But who God is, is three distinct persons; Each person possesses the single Divine nature fully as his own, just as you possess your own nature totally, so that when your body eats, we say “You” are eating, walking, cursing etc. Your nature is totally one with your person, and your person acts in your nature fully freely completely. So in God, all three persons possess the exact same single nature fully as if he was the sole “owner” of the Divine nature. The Divine persons cannot be separate from each other because they possess just one nature, not in parts each, not a third of God each, but fully, each is in 100% possession of the same Divine nature which is just one- They are therefore 100% in each other.
There are differences between East and West in how the Trinity is approached in terms of understanding. As I understand it, the West emphasizes the Divine nature before the three persons, therefore oneness of God before Threeness, and the East emphasizes the three Divine persons before the Divine nature, therefore the three persons before unity- These differences in approach and emphasis can cause differences in expressions and understandings.
In the West, the classic answer to your question above would be that the Father generates the person of the Son by his eternal act of self-knowledge, and the Holy Spirit by his eternal self-love. God’s perfect knowing and Loving of his own perfect being, these are the persons of the Son and Holy Spirit. So, though not representative 100% of all forms of Latin understanding, in the West, just as the Son is the Word/image, the Holy Spirit is God’s self Gift, or Love.
The Father knows himself- he sees himself as he is, and the word/image he sees in himself that represents all that he is to himself is the Eternal Word/Image/Son. The Father knows himself perfectly as he is in the Son, in all his goodness and his worthiness of the ultimate love- So he gives himself (loves) to the Son- This perfect self-giving of God is God the Holy Spirit- And the Son in turn loves the Father with the same love with which the Father has loved him, the only love worthy of God; The Son therefore gives the same love (Holy Spirit) back to the Father.
So the Father is giver-receiver of Divine love, and the Son is receiver-giver of he Divine Love. So the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as source, origin, and principle, and from the Son back to the Father, but not as source, origin or principle. Most Western/Latin theologians would say, Loving is what the Divine persons are occupied in doing from Eternity to Eternity, and the sharing of this Love is what prompted God to create beings outside the Divine being, (creatures) and the outpouring of this love on Mankind, which is God the Holy Spirit himself, is what Christ earned for us all by his own self-gift to God as the God-man. So the Person of God the holy Spirit is brought about by the Father, but involves as of necessity, the Son, and the Divine essence of the father is possessed by the Holy Spirit from the son.
I’m already thoroughly confused. :whacky:. I hope some expert can shed some light on this.
Peace!
M
Marybeloved
Guest
I’m sure Mardukm has not said anything about a second cause*** of the Son***, only of the Holy Spirit.
If this is true, then there is a definite difference, because we don’t believe in anything like an internal being of God and an external one- God has no parts. Rather, God’s being/nature is just one simple being, the Divine persons (who’s) are the only distinctions in God (per West).
Peace.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Lol, sorry, these prepositions are so vague, even in English. I meant secondary causation of the Spirit from the Son. It just came out wrong, hehe.
I think we would agree that God has no ‘parts.’ That is to say that things like nature, energy and essence are all our own metaphysical abstractions rather than concrete parts of God.
The essence-energies idea is basically that the divine essence of God is completely unknowable to created beings (humans, angels, dogs, etc.), but that his interactions with us through the uncreated energies (to put it loosely, uncreated grace) make Him known on a personal level to us, even though we cannot comprehend His ‘being’ on the level of essence. The typical Orthodox understanding of what the formula from the Father through the Son means, then, is that the Father is the one who causes the Holy Spirit to exist as a subsistent entity (a hypostasis), and that the Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Father (the Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father, as St. John of Damascus puts it), while the manifestation of the energies in the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son.
In this way, the formulation from the Father through the Son is understood to describe the eternal relationship between both the Father and the Holy Spirit and the Son and the Holy Spirit (for the uncreated energies being uncreated are also eternal), but also understood in a manner which upholds the monarchy of the Father.
Now that I think about it, one problem is that the Latin and Greek understanding of what ousia means might differ slightly. For Eastern theologians, essence and nature are two closely related, if not synonymous concepts. I think in the West, essence has some other implications that it does not in the East. A lot of misunderstanding could perhaps be cleared up if we stopped using these ancient philosophical terms which mean totally different things to different people and actually communicated what they mean in plain vernacular language.
I echo your sentiment, by the way, that this trinitarian talk can get a little crazy and confusing. :whacky:
D
DadDave
Guest
So when the dove descended on Jesus’ Baptism from who did it descend from the Father or the Son?
D
DadDave
Guest
I have another question as well… When doing some googling on this subject I came across an Orthodox site that claims that the writings of the western fathers have been corrupted on this subject… so this begs the question, what about quotes from Eastern fathers?
M
Marybeloved
Guest
That sounds more like a Muslim talking!
M
Marybeloved
Guest
So, simply put, energies refers to the limits of our own (creatures) participation in the Divine being and Essence to that which (of the Divine being) is beyond our capacities…right?
M
Marybeloved
Guest
There is a great big difference between:
-The actions of God in time and in creation; Such as the incarnation and the descent of the Holy Ghost on the incarnate God and on the Church on Pentecost, on one hand;
And:
-The actions of God in himself alone and from eternity- That is, the eternal processions in himself, his own being beyond time and space and completely removed from any creation in any way, including even the most sacred Humanity of Our Lord, on the other hand.
The processions of God (and the three persons) are totally independent of the incarnation and descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus- They are about who God is in himself, from Eternity, before any other existence apart from his own came to be- God from all Eternity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Son entered time (and space) as a subject when he took flesh and became Jesus of Nazareth, a God-man, in the womb of Mary about 2,000 years ago. But God the Son had existed from Eternity before any creature had ever issued from God. Before any angel, man, universe had existed, the two processions in and of God (Son and Holy Spirit) had been from all eternity.
Jesus was a God-man, so God the Holy Ghost descended on him at his baptism, from God the Father in time, as God the Holy Ghost has proceeded to the Son from the Father (per Western thought) in/from all Eternity… At least this is what I think.
Peace.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That would be the teaching in a nutshell, yes.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Yep, that’s how newadvent.org taught me.
It’s starting to make more sense to me. So basically, the Holy Spirit is “in existence” (from all eternity–sorry, can’t find words to explain what I mean ) from the Father alone. The Son is not the reason the Holy Spirit is God. But the Holy Spirit comes forth from/is sent from the Father and/through the Son.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I’m actually of the opinion that this notion of a distinction between the Divine Energy of the Spirit coming through the Son while the Essence of the Holy Spirit coming from the Father alone is a severe corruption of the actual teaching of the Fathers, and logically untenable to boot. I think it arises from the Byzantine East trying to square the denial of the filioque with the obvious statements of the Greek Fathers that the Holy Spirit does indeed come Personally “from” or “through” the Son.
The logical problem with the formulation is that Divine Energy is nothing other than the essential activity of the Divine Nature. We can’t say that the Divine Energy “manifests” separately “through the Son” while the Divine Nature/Essence does not come “through the Son”, because that removes the Divine Energy from the Divine Nature/Essence in such a way that is logically impossible. Just as my running or typing is necessarily linked and derived from my nature, the Divine Energy always comes with the Divine Nature.
The only logical meaning of the Patristic teaching that the Holy Spirit is Essentially “from the Father alone”, yet through the Son, is that they are referring to the fact that the Father is the ultimate source of all Divine Being. In other words all Divinity is sourced in the Father with no composite elements, that all the Trinity arises from the Father’s Essence alone as the the Son and Holy Spirit “exist” with the Father’s Essence (hence the consubstantiality of the Trinity). In other words, to put it in crude material terms merely for the purpose of illustration, the Holy Spirit is a “clone” of the Father alone since the “divine DNA” is the Father’s.
How the Holy Spirit exists, however, in the sense of His manner of procession from the Father, is certainly through the Son. This procession is sometimes called Energetic not because the Divine Energy is separately given to the Holy Spirit from the Divine Essence, nor because the Divine Energy is manifested distinctly from the Divine Essence, but rather because this procession represents an “activity” rather than essential identity; to use another crude material example I am essentially derived from my father, but I actively proceeded from only my mother. The Holy Spirit, while essentially derived from the Father as the arche of the Trinity, only proceeds “through the Son”.
continued…
G
Ghosty
Guest
The most technical Patristic explanation of this relationship actually comes from a Cappadocian Father, Gregory of Nyssa, when he writes:
Another good illustration comes from St. John of Damascus, who is often cited by Eastern Orthodox as a counterpoint to the filioque but when he actually illustrates his teaching he demonstrates precisely the Latin teaching of the filioque. He says:
The flowing of the water through the river is energetic (activity) while the identity of sea and spring is essential, but this doesn’t mean that the energy of the water (wetness) is transmitted separately from the nature of water; the nature of water comes to the sea from the river, along with the energy of water, but the sea is ultimately derived only actively from the river, not essentially (even though the essence of the sea comes through the river as well), because both the river and the sea are essentially derived from the spring. The “energetic procession” of the Holy Spirit from/through the Son has absolutely nothing to do with Divine Energy, but is rather simply the term used to distinguish between the active manner of procession and the essential derivation and identity of nature.
Hope that helps!
Peace and God bless!
The nature that the Holy Spirit has is the Father’s, but the Holy Spirit exists in every way “through the Son”.
Another good illustration comes from St. John of Damascus, who is often cited by Eastern Orthodox as a counterpoint to the filioque but when he actually illustrates his teaching he demonstrates precisely the Latin teaching of the filioque. He says:
In all of these examples the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, while being derived (along with the Son) from the Father alone. There can be no division of the Divine Energy from the Divine Nature; they are transmitted at once because the Divine Energy is nothing else but the activity of the Divine Nature, and it would be like transmitting “wetness” separately from “water”. What is actually being described is that there is a difference between the essential origin, which of course is the Father, and the manner in which this essence “becomes” the Holy Spirit, which is universally said by the Fathers to be “through the Son”, just as the origin of the water that makes the sea is the spring, but this water (along with its natural “wetness”) comes to the sea through the river.
The flowing of the water through the river is energetic (activity) while the identity of sea and spring is essential, but this doesn’t mean that the energy of the water (wetness) is transmitted separately from the nature of water; the nature of water comes to the sea from the river, along with the energy of water, but the sea is ultimately derived only actively from the river, not essentially (even though the essence of the sea comes through the river as well), because both the river and the sea are essentially derived from the spring. The “energetic procession” of the Holy Spirit from/through the Son has absolutely nothing to do with Divine Energy, but is rather simply the term used to distinguish between the active manner of procession and the essential derivation and identity of nature.
Hope that helps!
Peace and God bless!
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Thanks so much Ghosty! How much sense you make! :clapping:
H
Hesychios
Guest
“You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how”
Saint Gregory of Nazianzus Orat XX, 2]
“You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God”
[Saint Gregory of Nazianzus Orat XXXI, 8]
Saint Gregory of Nazianzus Orat XX, 2]
“You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God”
[Saint Gregory of Nazianzus Orat XXXI, 8]
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
Good advice. Unfortunately it has become a big deal, and thus needs to be dealt with. Alas.
- Status