Filioque - Distinguishing the Essence and Person of the Holy Spirit

[Swiss_Guy]

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…

So, in a very condensed version, the Holy Spirit exists because of the Father alone, meaning the Father is the only source of the Holy Spirit, but he is actually brought into being from the essence of the Son (which is the essence of the Father), and therefore proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

[DadDave]

Good advice. Unfortunately it has become a big deal, and thus needs to be dealt with. Alas.

Yes it’s either a great heresy or it isn’t.

 

[DadDave]

Hmm… This is very intetesting. I especially appreciate Ghosty’s comments. I was under the impression that from an orthodox pov that the HS is always sent from the father where as in the RCC the HS is sometimes sent from the Father and sometimes from the Son but ultimately both Son and Spirit are from the Father.
But it sounds like the teaching of both Catholic and Orthodox is that the Don sends the Spirit although He is of same substance of the Father as is the Son – the Father is the source of both.
Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[Ghosty]

“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]

These words of St. Gregory can’t mean that we shouldn’t seek to explain the distinctions between Procession and Generation in the Trinity, nor that we shouldn’t seek to understand Procession and Generation in any way whatsoever. If he had meant it that way then he would have had no dispute with the Arians, as they agreed that the Son was Generated and that the Holy Spirit Proceeded; the difference between the orthodox Christians and the Arians was precisely in the “how”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

So, in a very condensed version, the Holy Spirit exists because of the Father alone, meaning the Father is the only source of the Holy Spirit, but he is actually brought into being from the essence of the Son (which is the essence of the Father), and therefore proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I’m not comfortable with the terms you use here. The Holy Spirit exists because of the Father and the Son by definition. If we’re going to make a distinction it would be that the “what” that exists is from the Father alone, insofar as the Holy Spirit has the Father’s Essence, but “that” He exists is because of the Son as well since the Holy Spirit proceeds in no other way than “through the Son”.

To use the spring-river-sea example, the “what” of the sea is of the spring, but “that” the sea exists is because of the river.

As for “brought into being”, that terminology implies that the Holy Spirit was at some point not “in being”, which isn’t true.

If I were to put it in simple terms I would say that “what the Spirit is” is from the Father alone, not because He isn’t from/through the Son, but because what the Son has is merely the Essence of the Father as well. The Spirit “is” because He is Spirated from the Father through the Son, just as the Son is begotten of the Father.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Hmm… This is very intetesting. I especially appreciate Ghosty’s comments. I was under the impression that from an orthodox pov that the HS is always sent from the father where as in the RCC the HS is sometimes sent from the Father and sometimes from the Son but ultimately both Son and Spirit are from the Father.
But it sounds like the teaching of both Catholic and Orthodox is that the Don sends the Spirit although He is of same substance of the Father as is the Son – the Father is the source of both.
Am I understanding that correctly?

The filioque actually has nothing to do with the Spirit being sent, but rather with the internal relationship of the Trinity. The Orthodox agree that the Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son; the question is whether or not the existence of the Holy Spirit is in some way tied to the Son or if it is entirely distinct from the Son.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

East and west agree that the New Testament statements support the mission of the Holy Spirit through the Son, and do not pertain to the internal processions. The internal processions concept comes rather as a result of the ecumenical councils use of the word “homoousias” (consubstantial) in the Nicene Creed.

 

[DadDave]

The filioque actually has nothing to do with the Spirit being sent, but rather with the internal relationship of the Trinity. The Orthodox agree that the Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son; the question is whether or not the existence of the Holy Spirit is in some way tied to the Son or if it is entirely distinct from the Son.

Peace and God bless!

Ahhh… So then the Catholic view is more than the Son merely sending the Spirit but also the Son has some sourcing of the Spirit?

 

[Marybeloved]

Ahhh… So then the Catholic view is more than the Son merely sending the Spirit but also the Son has some sourcing of the Spirit?

Dave, like I said before- it seems you’re confusing two totally distinct realities: the eternal processions in God on one hand, and God’s action with regard to mankind, on the other. We, here, are discussing the first, not the latter.

The “sending” of the Spirit, is something God did with regard to mankind, just like the incarnation. What everyone has been discussing here has nothing at all to do with that. We are discussing How God exists in himself from all Eternity- To put it in words that may not be as orthodox, but will drive the point- We are discussing God’s inner nature- Who he is in himself, and this is far removed from any connection at all with any creation at all. So the sending of the Spirit and the incarnation nowhere enter the discussion…You understand?

Peace.

 

[DadDave]

Dave, like I said before- it seems you’re confusing two totally distinct realities: the eternal processions in God on one hand, and God’s action with regard to mankind, on the other. We, here, are discussing the first, not the latter.

The “sending” of the Spirit, is something God did with regard to mankind, just like the incarnation. What everyone has been discussing here has nothing at all to do with that. We are discussing How God exists in himself from all Eternity- To put it in words that may not be as orthodox, but will drive the point- We are discussing God’s inner nature- Who he is in himself, and this is far removed from any connection at all with any creation at all. So the sending of the Spirit and the incarnation nowhere enter the discussion…You understand?

Peace.

Gotcha. Now with regards to your statement i’ve gone back and re-read some of the posts and it’s starting to make sense now. I need to keep studying this…
Thank you!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I’m not comfortable with the terms you use here. The Holy Spirit exists because of the Father and the Son by definition. If we’re going to make a distinction it would be that the “what” that exists is from the Father alone, insofar as the Holy Spirit has the Father’s Essence, but “that” He exists is because of the Son as well since the Holy Spirit proceeds in no other way than “through the Son”.

To use the spring-river-sea example, the “what” of the sea is of the spring, but “that” the sea exists is because of the river.

As for “brought into being”, that terminology implies that the Holy Spirit was at some point not “in being”, which isn’t true.

If I were to put it in simple terms I would say that “what the Spirit is” is from the Father alone, not because He isn’t from/through the Son, but because what the Son has is merely the Essence of the Father as well. The Spirit “is” because He is Spirated from the Father through the Son, just as the Son is begotten of the Father.

Peace and God bless!

Yeah, I’m not very good with terms or at explaining stuff. People complain to me about that a lot. Because I was trying to say what you said here.

I think what was confusing me before was what Mardukm said about the Person of the Holy Spirit and the Essence of the Holy Spirit. It was the terminology that was the problem. But anyway, thanks!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Latin theology does not claim - nor has ever claimed - that the Spirit is from the Son in terms of hypostasis. When the Fathers (Latin and Eastern) say that the HS is from the Father through the Son, they refer either to the Mission of the HS, or the Substance/Essence of the HS, not the Person of the HS.

**
Yes. Florence does NOT say that the Son is the cause of the hypostasis** of the HS(which is equivalent to saying that the Person of the HS is from the Son); rather it says quite plainly that the Son is the cause (along with the Father) of the hypartzia of the HS (which is equivalent to saying that the Essence/Substance of the HS is from the Son).

This is what was throwing me off.

 

[Marybeloved]

This is what was throwing me off.

Perharps Mardukm means that (if I translate it to Latin-speak) the person of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone, as only the Father’s movement (self-gift to the Son) originates the procession that is a Divine person, but in the Son he takes his essence, which of course, is the essence of the father…?? Hey, I wont pretend that this statement leaves much to be desired .

 

[Marybeloved]

Perharps Mardukm means… **Hey, I wont pretend that this statement leaves much to be desired **.

Of course, this statement should be "Hey, I wont pretend that this statement doesn’t leave much to be desired.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Perharps Mardukm means that (if I translate it to Latin-speak) the person of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone, as only the Father’s movement (self-gift to the Son) originates the procession that is a Divine person, but in the Son he takes his essence, which of course, is the essence of the father…??

Yeah, that’s how I interpreted it after I understood the procession of the Holy Spirit better in general.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

I don’t understand the difference between cause and source in this discussion, and I think that’s where my problem lies. Could anyone comment on this?

Good to see you again!!!

Permit me to offer two analogies from the Fathers regarding “cause” and “source.”

The first one is from (I think) the Damascene, though something in the back of my mind tells me it might be from St. Gregory Nazianzen:

The Trinity is compared to a series of torches. The first torch passes its flame on to a second torch, and the second torch passes its flame on to a third torch.

Now answer the following three questions, and your answers will hopefully lead you to the proper distinction between “cause” and "source::

(1) Is the first torch a cause of the third torch (iow, did the flame of the third torch come from the first torch)?

(2) Is the second torch a cause of the third torch (iow, did the flame of the third torch come from the second torch)?

(3) Is the second torch the source of the flame which makes the third torch a torch, or is it the first torch that is the actual source of the flame that makes both the second and third torches?

The second analogy is definitely from the Damascene:

The Trinity is compared to a spring, a river and a sea.

Likewise, please answer the following three questions, and your answers will hopefully reinforce for you the proper distinction between “cause” and “source.”

(1) Is the spring a cause of the sea (iow, did the water of the sea come from the spring)?

(2) Is the river a cause of the sea (iow, did the water of the sea come from the river)?

(3) Is the river the source of the water that made the sea, or is it the spring that is the actual source of both the spring and the sea?

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SwissGuy,

This is what was throwing me off.

You have indicated that your understanding is better now than it was at the beginning of the thread. Perhaps the following incomplete analogy will also help:

The distinction between hypostasis and hypartzia is the same distinction between “a human being” and being “Swiss Guy.” They are intimately connected, but can be clearly distinguished. Your are a human being, but are clearly distinguished from the human being named Marduk.

In a similar way, the Third Person’s quality of being divine (i.e., Essence) is intimately and inseparably connected with, yet clearly distinguished from, his identity as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God (i.e., divinity), but He is clearly distinguished from the Father and Son.

In short:

Hypartzia ======> the 3rd Person of the Trinity is God.

Hypostasis ======> the 3rd Person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Daer brother Hesychios,

“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]

We need to be more contextual in our quotations of the Fathers.

Though it is true that St. Gregory Nazianzus gave these sayings, it is also true that he is the source of the saying:
“If there was a time that the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not; if there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Holy Spirit was not.”

The intent of his statement, of course, was to demonstrate the co-eternity of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, but it also reveals the hypostatic relationship of the Persons within the Godhead. Unfortunately, Arians and Pneumatomachi accomodated this statement to their own heresies, and used it as a basis for their claim that the Son and the Holy Spirit were not equal with the Father, or were creatures in relationship to the Father, or the HS a creature in relationship to the Father and Son. This statement from St. Gregory Nazianzen has also caused some modern critics to presume to cast doubt on his orthodoxy regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit, though the statement had a thoroughly orthodox intent.

St. Gregory’s statement was a statement of fact. It was a statement about a hypostatic property of the Son within the Godhead. It is no more a statement of “HOW” than to say that the statement “my being proceeds from my father through my mother” somehow reveals how that process occurs. St. Gregory’s statement is easily reflected in the teaching of the other Fathers - e.g., St. Basil’s statement that the relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit is like unto the relationship of the Father to the Son in terms of Essence; St. John Damascene’s analogizing the Trinity to a spring-river-sea relationship; St. Cyril of Alexandria’s statement that the Substance (i.e., not hypostasis) of the Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Son; the Latin Fathers statements that the Spirit proceeds (procedit, not ekporeusai) from the Son; etc. etc. etc.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

One needs to look at the original text to understand what the Latins mean. The original term used in reference to the phrase translated into English with the word “cause” as “subsistence” is not hypostasis, but hypartzia (we have our EO brother Mickey to thank for this information).

Right when you think you are finished…they pull you back in.

Are you referring to the hypostasis/hyparxeos argument?

ironically, he had quoted the original text in order to prove that the Decree of Florence was heretical, but his efforts had the opposite effect).

I thought the argument was rather convincing…I see that you are still dwelling on it many months later.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

But how is this understanding of energy consistent with the understanding of the fathers? Natures, whether human or divine do not act. You would not say that when you run or type that your essence is acting, you would say that your hypostasis is the acting entity. If natures acted, then Chalcedon would indeed be a Nestorian council, but we know that not to be true, because Christ’s natures are not said to act separably, but it is understood that the hypostasis of the eternal Word is the one who acts, not His natures.

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.

the trinity is properly from the Father alone, on this we can agree. However, I don’t think it is correct to say that the trinity arises from the essence of the Father. The hypostasis of the Father is properly the cause of the Trinity.

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”.

So then the Holy Spirit actively proceeds from the Son (that is what your analogy seems to imply)? That is definitely contrary to the teaching of the Fathers, as this would truly make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit in the sense of the Greek word αιτία.