Filioque - Distinguishing the Essence and Person of the Holy Spirit

[Cavaradossi]

The most technical Patristic explanation of this relationship actually comes from a Cappadocian Father, Gregory of Nyssa, when he writes:

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 certainly cannot be what St. Gregory of Nyssa means. Saying that the Holy Spirit exists through the Son is the same as saying that the Son participates in the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.

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:

Think of the Father as a spring of life begetting the Son like a river and the Holy Ghost like a sea, for the spring and the river and sea are all one nature.

Think of the Father as a root, and of the Son as a branch, and the Spirit as a fruit, for the substance in these three is one.

The Father is a sun with the Son as rays and the Holy Ghost as heat.

One of these very examples are the ones used by Gregory II in support of his Tomus at Blachernae. The Father is the sun, the Son is the ray, the Holy Ghost is heat. Even though all three of these have a common essence, which is hidden from us that comes directly from the sun. Through the rays, the heat is sent upon us, and we receive the energy of the sun. These analogies support the Orthodox position of the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son.

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 problem with this example is that water is not exactly what the common essence of the spring, river and sea would be (this is a limitation of this metaphor), just as the physical matter which composes you or me is not what our human nature is. The essence or nature of the spring, river and sea, assuming they were consubstantial, would literally be some metaphysical ’ thing’ which is the commonality between their separate existences.

This is why the sun, ray, heat (or light) metaphor is better: there is no physical commonality between them which we could confuse with being the essence. In this model, there is one hypostasis, the sun, which causes the existence of two other hypostaseis, the ray and the heat, and the three together have some common essence which makes them all identifiable as part of the same being (that is, consubstantial). This essence is unknown to us (just like the essence of the Trinity would be unknown to us). The sun, rays and heat, however, are able to interact with us through it’s energy, which is conveyed to us from the sun, through the rays and in the heat.

 

[Ghosty]

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.

I didn’t say that nature’s act, I said that the energies of a thing are from its nature. From St. John of Damascus’ “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”:

All the faculties we have already discussed, both those of knowledge and those of life, both the natural and the artificial, are, it is to be noted, called energies. For energy is the natural force and activity of each essence: or again, natural energy is the activity innate in every essence: and so, clearly, things that have the same essence have also the same energy, and things that have different natures have also different energies. For no essence can be devoid of natural energy.

The heat (energy) of fire arises from the nature of fire, but it is this fire that burns, not the nature of fire. Laughter is an energy of human nature, but it is Ghosty who laughs, not human nature. Likewise it’s impossible to speak of the Divine Energy being passed through the Son to the Holy Spirit without speaking of the Divine Nature passing through the Son and to the Holy Spirit, because the Divine Energy is nothing else by the essential properties of the Divine Nature.

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.

You are correct that the Trinity doesn’t arise from the Essence of the Father, because Essences don’t act (as I explained above). When I say that the Holy Spirit is Essentially of the Father I’m referring to the fact that the Essence of the Holy Spirit is the Father’s Essence, not that the Divine Essence itself Spirates the Holy Spirit.

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.

No, it wouldn’t, because aitia is used to mean “source” when referring to the Father’s relationship with the Trinity. The word aitia has many different meanings, however, as can be seen by the writings of Aristotle, and it is in these meanings that the Latins use the word “cause” when applied to the Son.

at certainly cannot be what St. Gregory of Nyssa means. Saying that the Holy Spirit exists through the Son is the same as saying that the Son participates in the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.

It is what St. Gregory of Nyssa means, and it’s the only thing he can mean in this context because he is explicitly speaking of the procession and origins of the Persons of the Trinity. There is quite simply no other way I can imagine to interpret this passage. He’s certainly not speaking of the economic Trinity because he’s speaking of internal relations, and he’s not speaking of any kind of “eternal mission” or “energetic sending” because he says this how we determine the fundamental origins and distinctions of the Persons. The fact is that St. Gregory of Nyssa, among many, many other Greek Fathers, fully supports the filioque and contradicts the later Photian understanding.

You seem to be denying the plain fact of what St. Gregory taught because you assume the polemics against the filioque to be true. I say we should simply accept what the Father’s have written, with no assumption either way, and see how the theology plays out. In this case St. Gregory is explicitly saying that the Person of the Holy Spirit is “by the Son”. It is because of points like this that Bessarion (the Byzantine expert on Greek Patristics and Classics at the Council of Florence) sided with the Latins in the end; the Greek Fathers quite simply taught what the Latins teach. This also explains why St. Maximos so readily defended the Latins use of the filioque in his own time, despite the fact that the Latins clearly taught the same thing then that they do today.

Other Fathers said the same things, but not so explicitly or in such detail, which is why I prefer to use St. Gregory’s writings. Rather than just assume that Photius’ and his subsequent theologians’ arguments are sound we should test them and see how they run in the face of the statements of earlier Fathers. I think, in this light, the case for the filioque is extremely sound, and certainly requires much less mental gymnastics and hair-splitting than is required by modern Eastern Orthodox readings of the Fathers, which is quite ironic given that it is the Latins who are so often accused of such things.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

One of these very examples are the ones used by Gregory II in support of his Tomus at Blachernae. The Father is the sun, the Son is the ray, the Holy Ghost is heat. Even though all three of these have a common essence, which is hidden from us that comes directly from the sun. Through the rays, the heat is sent upon us, and we receive the energy of the sun. These analogies support the Orthodox position of the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son.

But these quotes are clearly not speaking about the economic missions of the Trinity, but rather the relationship of nature and the transmission of that nature from the Father. Read the writings of St. John of Damascus in full context and you’ll see that he’s speaking about the internal relations of the Trinity, the Divine Persons, and Divine Nature, not their missions to the world. His whole point was to combat heresies regarding the internal relations of the Trinity.

So no, these analogies don’t support the Orthodox contention at all. Or, rather, they don’t support it to the exclusion of the Latin contention (and the Latins agree completely about the economic manifestations of the Trinity). If these analogies were intended to show the internal relations and the sharing of the Divine Nature, as it is clear they are, then we must take them as such and not force later polemical interpretations on them, insisting against all credibility that they refer to economic relations with creatures.

The problem with this example is that water is not exactly what the common essence of the spring, river and sea would be (this is a limitation of this metaphor), just as the physical matter which composes you or me is not what our human nature is. The essence or nature of the spring, river and sea, assuming they were consubstantial, would literally be some metaphysical ’ thing’ which is the commonality between their separate existences.

This is why the sun, ray, heat (or light) metaphor is better: there is no physical commonality between them which we could confuse with being the essence. In this model, there is one hypostasis, the sun, which causes the existence of two other hypostaseis, the ray and the heat, and the three together have some common essence which makes them all identifiable as part of the same being (that is, consubstantial). This essence is unknown to us (just like the essence of the Trinity would be unknown to us). The sun, rays and heat, however, are able to interact with us through it’s energy, which is conveyed to us from the sun, through the rays and in the heat.

Don’t get too hung up in the metaphors, though I entirely disagree that the common essence isn’t water in the analogy that St. John uses. The point in each analogy provided by St. John is that the nature in question (whatever it may be) originates in one, is given to another, and through that to a third. It is the same thing St. Gregory says when he speaks of the “interposition of the Son” in the transmission of the Divine Nature; the river, the rays, and the branch are all interposed in the transmission of the nature to the sea, heat, and fruit.

Bear in mind that I don’t care one way or the other if the filioque is true or false; my belief in the Catholic position actually rests on the relationship with the Pope, not with the filioque. The only reason I support the idea is because it is plain to see in the Fathers, and I dislike the back-reading and mental gyrations necessary to rip the filioque out of their teachings.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

But these quotes are clearly not speaking about the economic missions of the Trinity, but rather the relationship of nature and the transmission of that nature from the Father. Read the writings of St. John of Damascus in full context and you’ll see that he’s speaking about the internal relations of the Trinity, the Divine Persons, and Divine Nature, not their missions to the world. His whole point was to combat heresies regarding the internal relations of the Trinity.

So no, these analogies don’t support the Orthodox contention at all. Or, rather, they don’t support it to the exclusion of the Latin contention (and the Latins agree completely about the economic manifestations of the Trinity). If these analogies were intended to show the internal relations and the sharing of the Divine Nature, as it is clear they are, then we must take them as such and not force later polemical interpretations on them, insisting against all credibility that they refer to economic relations with creatures.

Don’t get too hung up in the metaphors, though I entirely disagree that the common essence isn’t water in the analogy that St. John uses. The point in each analogy provided by St. John is that the nature in question (whatever it may be) originates in one, is given to another, and through that to a third. It is the same thing St. Gregory says when he speaks of the “interposition of the Son” in the transmission of the Divine Nature; the river, the rays, and the branch are all interposed in the transmission of the nature to the sea, heat, and fruit.

Bear in mind that I don’t care one way or the other if the filioque is true or false; my belief in the Catholic position actually rests on the relationship with the Pope, not with the filioque. The only reason I support the idea is because it is plain to see in the Fathers, and I dislike the back-reading and mental gyrations necessary to rip the filioque out of their teachings.

Peace and God bless!

I actually have read quite a good deal of St. John of Damascus’ an Exact Exposition on the Orthodox faith (of course, it’s quite lengthy, but I’ve gotten through the chapters on the Trinity). That other passage, from St. Gregory of Nyssa, by the way, doesn’t seem to mean much in context. He argues in that passage that the distinctions between the hypostaseis of the trinity does not divide the essence (in a later passage, he talks about trees, and how whether a tree was planted or grew naturally does not change its essence, and that the same, therefore, must be true of whether the members of the trinity are caused and uncaused). I have found the larger work from which that quotation comes, and I couldn’t find anywhere that St. Gregory says that the Son participates in the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit (in fact, most mentions of through the Son in that work seem to be referring to the economy), so I’m not so sure that’s what he meant. If I recall, even Marduk’s opinion is that the Son does not cause the person of the Holy Spirit.

At any rate, I’m not so sure that the issue is quite as simple as the patristic witness being clear evidence for the filioque. That relies on a lot of odd grammatical assumptions, firstly that αιτία is equivalent to both source and cause in Latin, and that the Greek speaking Fathers only meant source when using αιτία in that context (and that they were thinking with the Aristotelian metaphysics which provided the framework for medieval scholasticism, which is not apparent at all), and that ex patre filioque is grammatically equivalent to ex patre per filium.

In addition, we see that both sides had to grapple with seemingly contradictory statements from the Eastern Fathers. For example, St. John of Damascus produced both of these statements in the same paragraph:

And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.

And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation

If I recall, the former is a passage which Aquinas had to grapple with in order to make a good case for the filioque; the latter is a passage which the conservative Byzantine theologians, who agreed with Photius had to grapple with. The medieval Byzantine solution seems to be the best understanding of such seemingly conflicting patristic witness, to me. It is worth noting that the medieval Byzantine formulation does not only deal with the economic relation of the trinity with creatures, that is the formulation put forth by Photius. The medieval Byzantine understanding is that in the inner being (which is what essence refers to) of the trinity, the Spirit can only be caused by the Father. In respect to the external being of the trinity (which is energy), the Spirit is manifest from the Father through the Son in all eternity, as the divine energies must be eternal, even if creation is not. Strictly speaking economy only refers to the actions of the trinity within time and creation.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

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.

I believe brother Ghosty’s intent was merely that the Energy and Essence cannot ontologically be separated. When he stated “Divine Energy is nothing other than the essential activity of the Divine Nature,” I understood him to mean “Divine Energy is nothing other than the essential activity connected with the Divine Nature.”

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.

Brother Ghosty did not say that “the Trinity arises from the Essence of the Father.” Specifically, he stated, “the Trinity arises from the Father’s Essence alone.” To me, he was stressing that there is no other Essence but the Father’s from which the Trinity arises. He was not saying that the Essence itself is acting.

Actually, I am having a hard time following you. Earlier, I distinguished between the Origin of Essence and the Origin of Hypostasis (not that they can be separated, but that they are distinct). You responded by saying that the Origination of Essence is the SAME ACT as the Origination of Hypostasis. Then I insisted on the distinction by stating that they are NOT the same act, but they occur simultaneously and inseparably. Now, in respnose to brother Ghosty, it is you who are distinguishing between (properly) between Hypostasis and Essence.

So, do you agree that the Origination of Essence can be distinguished (not separated, but distinguished) from the Origination of Hypostasis?

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.

Actually, the exact words of brother Ghosty were that the Holy Spirit proceeds “THROUGH the Son.” He did not say that the Holy Spirit ACTIVELY proceeds FROM the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

One of these very examples are the ones used by Gregory II in support of his Tomus at Blachernae. The Father is the sun, the Son is the ray, the Holy Ghost is heat. Even though all three of these have a common essence, which is hidden from us that comes directly from the sun. Through the rays, the heat is sent upon us, and we receive the energy of the sun. These analogies support the Orthodox position of the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son.

Could you please explain how one cannot use the Sun-ray-heat analogy in support of the Latin understanding that the ESSENCE of Divinity originates from the Father, is given to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit through the Son?

The issue I have with the Eastern explanation (at least as you explain it) is that it seems not only to distinguish the Essence and Energy, but actually SEPARATES the Essence from the Energy. As an Oriental, I cannot abide with that, and I don’t believe any patristic source actually separates the Essence from the Energy in the way that you express. Though Orientals utilize the language of Essence and Energy, we would not ever separate the Essence from the Energy. You claim that the Sun-ray-heat analogy applies only to the Energy. As an Oriental, I would say that it definitely ALSO applies to the Essence. Essence and Energy can NEVER be separated in the activity of the Godhead. It is simply that of the two, we as creatures can only experience the Energy, not the Essence. But as far as the internal workings of the Godhead, Essence and Energy can NEVER be separated.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I have found the larger work from which that quotation comes, and I couldn’t find anywhere that St. Gregory says that the Son participates in the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit (in fact, most mentions of through the Son in that work seem to be referring to the economy), so I’m not so sure that’s what he meant. If I recall, even Marduk’s opinion is that the Son does not cause the person of the Holy Spirit.

From my studies of the Latin teaching on filioque, I have not found that the Latin Church - officially, at any rate - claims that the Son participates in the Hypostatic Procession. What I do find from the Latin teaching is that the Son participates in the Essential/Energetic Procession, as distinct from the Hypostatic Procession.

Here’s my understanding:

The Father is the sole Source of the Son and Holy Spirit. He generates their Persons (Hypostasis). “Then” (in quotes, because there is no time in Eternity) He fills their Persons with Divine Essence/Energy. He fills the Person of the Son with His (the Father’s) Divine Essence/Energy. And “then” fills the Person of the Holy Spirit with His (the Father’s) Divine Essence/Energy THROUGH the Son. So the Divine Essence/ Energy comes to the Holy Spirit FROM the Son, but the Father, not the Son, is the SOURCE of the Divine Essence/Energy.

From the explanation just provided, one can see that the Son is a cause of the Hypartzia of the Holy Spirit, but the Hypostasis is generated by the Father alone.

I understand exactly where brother Ghosty is coming from. Though we can distinguish (though not separate) the Essence from the Hypostasis, it is obvious that the Essence is an essential element of the Hypostasis. The Hypostasis cannot exist without the Essence (hence, they can never be separated) - and neither can the Hypostasis exist without the Energy, for that matter. So while we can all agree that the Father is the sole Source of the Hypostasis, it is difficult to imagine that the Son has no role in the existence of the Holy Spirit, especially as (1) The Latins teach that the Essence is from or through the Son and (2) the Easterns teach that the Energy is from or through the Son — on the premise that the Essence/Energy are essential elements of the Hypostasis.

The medieval Byzantine solution seems to be the best understanding of such seemingly conflicting patristic witness, to me. It is worth noting that the medieval Byzantine formulation does not only deal with the economic relation of the trinity with creatures, that is the formulation put forth by Photius. The medieval Byzantine understanding is that in the inner being (which is what essence refers to) of the trinity, the Spirit can only be caused by the Father. In respect to the external being of the trinity (which is energy), the Spirit is manifest from the Father through the Son in all eternity, as the divine energies must be eternal, even if creation is not. Strictly speaking economy only refers to the actions of the trinity within time and creation.

That’s exactly where I, as an Oriental, disagree with the Eastern Byzantine explanation. The Energy does not merely relate to the “external being” of the Trinity. In fact, I can’t comprehend the idea of distinguishing between the “external being” and the “internal being.” There is one God and He has Essence and Energy THROUGH and THROUGH, whether “external” or “internal.” The Essence can never be separated from the Energy (“externally” or “internally”); however, we as creatures can only experience the Energy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

I believe brother Ghosty’s intent was merely that the Energy and Essence cannot ontologically be separated. When he stated “Divine Energy is nothing other than the essential activity of the Divine Nature,” I understood him to mean “Divine Energy is nothing other than the essential activity connected with the Divine Nature.”

I would have to disagree, then. Essence concerns the being of the trinity, while energies concern the external manifestation of the trinity. They are both rooted in the hypostasis of the Father (as is everything which exists), but they reflect two different ‘dimensions’ to put it simply in a rather unsophisticated way.

Brother Ghosty did not say that “the Trinity arises from the Essence of the Father.” Specifically, he stated, “the Trinity arises from the Father’s Essence alone.” To me, he was stressing that there is no other Essence but the Father’s from which the Trinity arises. He was not saying that the Essence itself is acting.

Actually, I am having a hard time following you. Earlier, I distinguished between the Origin of Essence and the Origin of Hypostasis (not that they can be separated, but that they are distinct). You responded by saying that the Origination of Essence is the SAME ACT as the Origination of Hypostasis. Then I insisted on the distinction by stating that they are NOT the same act, but they occur simultaneously and inseparably. Now, in respnose to brother Ghosty, it is you who are distinguishing between (properly) between Hypostasis and Essence.

Of course Essence and Hypostasis can be distinguished. I object, however to the thought that the essence can somehow proceed in a different manner than the hypostasis. St. Basil the Great, for example says this:

If you ask me to state shortly my own view, I shall state that ousia has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to the particular. Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of essence (ousia) and by his own properties is such an one and such an one. In the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship,or the power to sanctify.

To say that the ousia, in the sense that St. Basil defines it, goes through the Son makes absolutely no sense, it would be saying that the divinity of the Holy Spirit somehow goes through the Son (how does one passively bestow divinity?). I don’t think ousia is some sort of ‘stuff’ which can be manipulated in such a manner. Ousia is the common divine being of the Trinity.

So, do you agree that the Origination of Essence can be distinguished (not separated, but distinguished) from the Origination of Hypostasis?

Of course they can be theoretically distinguished, but the origination of ousia and hypostasis, as you have put it cannot be separated, so how can the two have separate manners of procession (one from the Father, the other from the Father through the Son)?

 

[mardukm]

That’s exactly where I, as an Oriental, disagree with the Eastern Byzantine explanation. The Energy does not merely relate to the “external being” of the Trinity. In fact, I can’t comprehend the idea of distinguishing between the “external being” and the “internal being.” There is one God and He has Essence and Energy THROUGH and THROUGH, whether “external” or “internal.” The Essence can never be separated from the Energy (“externally” or “internally”); however, we as creatures can only experience the Energy.

Btw, as an Oriental, I can accept the notion of “external activity” and “internal activity,” but I cannot comprehend the notion of “external being” and “internal being.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Could you please explain how one cannot use the Sun-ray-heat analogy in support of the Latin understanding that the ESSENCE of Divinity originates from the Father, is given to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit through the Son?

The issue I have with the Eastern explanation (at least as you explain it) is that it seems not only to distinguish the Essence and Energy, but actually SEPARATES the Essence from the Energy. As an Oriental, I cannot abide with that, and I don’t believe any patristic source actually separates the Essence from the Energy in the way that you express. Though Orientals utilize the language of Essence and Energy, we would not ever separate the Essence from the Energy. You claim that the Sun-ray-heat analogy applies only to the Energy. As an Oriental, I would say that it definitely ALSO applies to the Essence. Essence and Energy can NEVER be separated in the activity of the Godhead. It is simply that of the two, we as creatures can only experience the Energy, not the Essence. But as far as the internal workings of the Godhead, Essence and Energy can NEVER be separated.

Blessings,
Marduk

Gregory Palamas refers to St. Cyril, in his argument for the distinction between the divine energies and the divine essence. St. Cyril himself in turn draws this argument from St. Athanasius.

St. Athanasius in his discourses against the Arians argues that the generation of the Son cannot be proper to the energy (or power) of the will βουλησεος εργον] of the Father, for that would make the Son created, but that the generation of the Son is proper to the essence of the Father. Similarly, Gregory argues that if there is no real distinction between the essence and energies of God, then there would be no difference between generation and creation, hence we must come to the absurd conclusion that we are divine, and that the Word is a creature. Rather than *never *being able to be distinct, they *must *be distinct.

Edit: I’m not so sure that I can understand how you cannot accept a distinction between the procession of the essence and the manifestation of the energies, but that you can accept a difference between the procession of the hypostasis of the Spirit and that of the ousia of the Spirit. To me, at least, the latter seems to be more problematic, as it separates the idea of existing as a particular person from being as a common type of thing. Surely the Holy Spirit as a person cannot receive its divinity in a different manner that that in which it receives its existence.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

I would have to disagree, then. Essence concerns the being of the trinity, while energies concern the external manifestation of the trinity. They are both rooted in the hypostasis of the Father (as is everything which exists), but they reflect two different ‘dimensions’ to put it simply in a rather unsophisticated way.

Are we disagreeing on what brother Ghosty meant? Well, let’s let him speak for himself.

Of course Essence and Hypostasis can be distinguished. I object, however to the thought that the essence can somehow proceed in a different manner than the hypostasis. St. Basil the Great, for example says this:

To say that the ousia, in the sense that St. Basil defines it, goes through the Son makes absolutely no sense, it would be saying that the divinity of the Holy Spirit somehow goes through the Son (how does one passively bestow divinity?). I don’t think ousia is some sort of ‘stuff’ which can be manipulated in such a manner. Ousia is the common divine being of the Trinity.

But St. Basil elsewhere says precisely what you do not comprehend - that the ousia of the Spirit is derived from the Son (I wish I had my book resources with me right now). All that the Spirit has, he obtains from the Son, except His hypostasis. Perhaps we just need to accept that it is incomprehensible, but it is what the Fathers teach.

Of course they can be theoretically distinguished, but the origination of ousia and hypostasis, as you have put it cannot be separated, so how can the two have separate manners of procession (one from the Father, the other from the Father through the Son)?

In a previous post, I explained my comprehension of it (i.e., how the Father generates the hypostasis, and “then” fills their Being with His Essence/Energy).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Are we disagreeing on what brother Ghosty meant? Well, let’s let him speak for himself.

I’m just disagreeing with the assertion that Essence and Energy cannot be distinguished in a real fashion.

But St. Basil elsewhere says precisely what you do not comprehend - that the ousia of the Spirit is derived from the Son (I wish I had my book resources with me right now). All that the Spirit has, he obtains from the Son, except His hypostasis. Perhaps we just need to accept that it is incomprehensible, but it is what the Fathers teach.

Do you happen to know what work or letter it comes from? I may happen to have it.

In a previous post, I explained my comprehension of it (i.e., how the Father generates the hypostasis, and “then” fills their Being with His Essence/Energy).

I think there are two ways to view this. One is the way you described. The other is that the hypostasis is the closing off of the essence. That seems to be the view taken in Cappadoccian Epistle 38, where hypostasis is that which cuts off from the general ousia a subsistent being (literally called a ‘thing’ (πρᾶγμα) in the epistle). This second way of viewing the relationship between ousia and hypostasis obvious rules out any kind of essential procession, but I’m unsure how commonly found it is in patristic literature.

 

[mardukm]

Gregory Palamas refers to St. Cyril, in his argument for the distinction between the divine energies and the divine essence. St. Cyril himself in turn draws this argument from St. Athanasius.

St. Athanasius in his discourses against the Arians argues that the generation of the Son cannot be proper to the energy (or power) of the will βουλησεος εργον] of the Father, for that would make the Son created, but that the generation of the Son is proper to the essence of the Father. Similarly, Gregory argues that if there is no real distinction between the essence and energies of God, then there would be no difference between generation and creation, hence we must come to the absurd conclusion that we are divine, and that the Word is a creature. Rather than *never *being able to be distinct, they *must *be distinct.

I believe this should answer your earlier query about the ousia being “manipulated.” It is not manipulated in any sense. It is the “natural” activity of the Godhead. The generation of the Son and Spirit, and the flow of the ousia of the Spirit through the Son is a “natural” activity of the Godhead. It is not an energy of will, but an energy of nature (like water naturally flows in the direction of gravity). Don’t ask “how can that be?” It is a Mystery.

Edit: I’m not so sure that I can understand how you cannot accept a distinction between the procession of the essence and the manifestation of the energies,

I cannot accept a distinction WITHIN the Godhead of an activity that occurs in Eternity.

but that you can accept a difference between the procession of the hypostasis of the Spirit and that of the ousia of the Spirit.

I think the problem here is one of language. When one speaks of a “procession of hypostasis,” one is referring and can ONLY refer to the activity of ekporeusai, i.e., origination. But when one speaks of the “procession of ousia,” one can speak EITHER of the activity of ekporeusai OR the activity of proienai/procedit. They are two distinguishable (though inseparable) activities. We cannot speak of ekporeusai (i.e., origination) as an activity of the Son, because that is a hypostatic property of the Father alone. But we CAN speak of proienai/procedit (i.e., proceeding) as an activity of the Father and the Son, for it is a property that the Father has given to the Son.

To me, at least, the former seems to be more problematic, as it separates the idea of existing as a particular person from being as a general type of thing.

It doesn’t separate, only distinguishes - just as we distinguish the Persons of the Godhead, but do not separate them in the least. Given that, I myself do not understand why the notion of “inseparable but distinct” is hard for you to understand.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

So the argument is that the Holy Spirit receives his essence through the Son because the Son is consubstantial with the Father?

 

[mardukm]

I’m just disagreeing with the assertion that Essence and Energy cannot be distinguished in a real fashion.

They can be distinguished in a real fashion in the economy (because we obviously do not experience the Essence), but not in the Godhead.

Do you happen to know what work or letter it comes from? I may happen to have it.

Alas, I don’t have my book resources here in the Philippines. But thank you for asking, and not immediately dismissing my claim. I know it’s there. Perhaps someone else can point it out from the works of St. Basil.

I think there are two ways to view this. One is the way you described. The other is that the hypostasis is the closing off of the essence. That seems to be the view taken in Cappadoccian Epistle 38, where hypostasis is that which cuts off from the general ousia a subsistent being (literally called a ‘thing’ (πρᾶγμα) in the epistle). This second way of viewing the relationship between ousia and hypostasis obvious rules out any kind of essential procession, but I’m unsure how commonly found it is in patristic literature.

I would like to study this matter some more. I’m not sure what “closing off of the essence” means. Does that imply that the Essence is not “naturally” shared within the Godhead? That seems unorthodox to me. Give me some time to read the link, and let me get back to you on that. Thanks for the info, btw.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

They can be distinguished in a real fashion in the economy (because we obviously do not experience the Essence), but not in the Godhead.

Alas, I don’t have my book resources here in the Philippines. But thank you for asking, and not immediately dismissing my claim. I know it’s there. Perhaps someone else can point it out from the works of St. Basil.

 

[mardukm]

So the argument is that the Holy Spirit receives his essence through the Son because the Son is consubstantial with the Father?

No, that is not the argument.

If memory serves me correctly, the main patristic rationale used by the Fathers is the order of names given in Scripture. It is always, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” To the Fathers, that implies their internal relationship. I know for a fact that St. Basil used this rationale, and you might recognize it from your readings of him.,

As St. Gregory of Nazianzen taught: “If there was a time when the Father was not, there was a time when the Son was not; if there was a time when the Son was not, there was a time when the Spirit was not.”

As St. Cyril of Alexandria taught: “The Substance of the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Son.”

These are just two of the Fathers that I can think of off hand, without my book resources here in the Philippines.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, that is not the argument.

If memory serves me correctly, the main patristic rationale used by the Fathers is the order of names given in Scripture. It is always, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” To the Fathers, that implies their internal relationship. I know for a fact that St. Basil used this rationale, and you might recognize it from your readings of him.,

As St. Gregory of Nazianzen taught: “If there was a time when the Father was not, there was a time when the Son was not; if there was a time when the Son was not, there was a time when the Spirit was not.”

As St. Cyril of Alexandria taught: “The Substance of the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Son.”

These are just two of the Fathers that I can think of off hand, without my book resources here in the Philippines.

Blessings,
Marduk

You must truly love theology, to still be here debating the filioque while overseas.

I hope you are having a good stay in the Philippines (make sure to take advantage of their cheap durians… if you like the stuff. I sometimes lament the fact that I can’t find fruits from Asia for good prices in America, but I suppose that’s life).

 

[Mickey]

Actually, the exact words of brother Ghosty were that the Holy Spirit proceeds “THROUGH the Son.” He did not say that the Holy Spirit ACTIVELY proceeds FROM the Son.

Interesting. The Latins have just implemented many changes to their Liturgy in an attempt to turn back the clock to some traditional-minded translations. It would have been a perfect oppotunity to correct the creed…but they did not.

 

[Vico]

Mark of Ephesus identified the conflict in doctrine as being the eastern Energy and Essence vs the western theology of Being of St. Thomas Aquinas.

“…show us how he derives that the Spirit receives its existence from the Son, and how we receive creations from the Spirit.” p. 348. *

Mark quotes Saint Gregory Nazianzus as saying that the Holy Spirit: “is sent through economy, comes of its own volition”. p. 365. *

** Actorum Graecorum** Concilii Florentini *(Rome 1953) by J. Gill,