Filioque - Distinguishing the Essence and Person of the Holy Spirit

[mardukm]

Ghosty and Marduk always swarm these threads with the same circular reasoning. And it is still unconvincing the 1000th time around.

Oh, you mean while you were running around in circles in your previous post trying to justify what the Easterns mean by perpetuating the confusion in using terms derived from the Latin procedit to translate ekporeusai?

If you’re going to claim that the Eastern position needs to be understood (which I heartily accept), do us a favor and give the Latins the same benefit of the doubt and try to understand them as well. Otherwise, you’re just irritating that big log in your eye.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

He proceeds not from the Father into the Son

Though the generation of hypostasis is the Father’s alone, I THINK this statement means that the Son participates in the Procession by way of transmitting the Father’s Essence/Energy to the Holy Spirit. I don’t have a problem with that.

nor from the Son to sanctify creatures

I definitely agree with this. The Procession refers to the internal activity of the Godhead in Eternity, and not to the external, economic activity in creation.

but he [sic] is shown to have proceeded from both equally, because he [sic] is known as the love or the sanctity of both"

Here, it seems evident that the writer is undertstanding “proceeds” in terms of transmission of Divine properties (“love,” “sanctity”), instead of generation of hypostasis. So I have no problem with that.

I think everyone can agree that the generation of hypostasis is an activity of the Father alone. The issue is whether one believes that the transmission of Divinity/divine properties (Essence and Energy) is essential to the hypostasis of the Spirit. The Latins obviously believe it is, and I believe the Latins are correct (Scripture and the Fathers are unanmous that all the Spirit has, he receives from the Son). The Easterns seem to want to disconnect the two in their insistence that the Son has absolutely no role in the hypostasis of the Spirit. Are the Easterns denying the teaching that what the Spirit has, He receives from the Son? Are the Easterns claiming that the hypostasis originating from the Father can exist apart from the Essence/Energy transmitted from the Son? Am I misunderstanding the Eastern position? Please help me understand the Eastern position.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

Ghosty and Marduk always swarm these threads with the same circular reasoning. And it is still unconvincing the 1000th time around.

What circular reasoning? Have you been reading the same postings I have? If you go back you’ll see that at first many of us couldn’t understand the differences and now do. The Fathers by Mardukm’s and Ghosty’s testimony express the nuances and differences which have been explained to you and us so clearly: Origin and cause; Person and essence. The patristic metaphor, spring-river-sea is so clear Spring is the source of the *water *that makes the River and the Sea, as well as the cause of the River and the Sea themselves; River is a cause of the Sea which must pass through the River to become the Sea, though not itself the source/origin of the Sea or its waters: Three things, one water. One source, two causes. Why don’t you understand it? I sure did!

What remains still unexplained and thoroughly unconvincing on the other hand, is how God can have an internal and external being and not be made of parts.

Is the external being still fully God? Then why is it experience-able by creatures while the essence is not? Is there any part of God that is in any way less than absolute and full divinity? So that we, creatures, can experience that part and not the other part which is in itself unknowable by creatures while the other “external being” is knowable despite being the same non-composite being? Again, is this external being God or not? Can you have an existence that is external to God’s essence, but uncreated and yet not God? Or an existence that is God, yet somehow less than fully God?

Peace.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

This happened at the Council of Florence; the people of the East refused to accept the decisions of the Orthodox bishops and Patriarch (for various reasons) and the Council was eventually repudiated when the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was destroyed by the Ottoman Turks.

So we’ve been down the road you suggest before, and it only resulted in a hardening of positions and hearts.

Peace and God bless!

God have mercy on us all. :byzsoc:

 

[Alfonsus]

Forgive me for being so blunt… but in my opinion, Mickey participation in this thread really destroy the whole discussion. The discussion became derailed with snippets of knee-jerk sarcasm instead instead.
I love to see this thread going on though.

 

[Marybeloved]

Forgive me for being so blunt… but in my opinion, Mickey participation in this thread really destroy the whole discussion. The discussion became derailed with snippets of knee-jerk sarcasm instead instead.
I love to see this thread going on though.

Me too! I’m learning a great deal!

 

[Vico]

Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas I, 36, 3, wrote:

I answer that, Whenever one is said to act through another, this preposition “through” points out, in what is covered by it, some cause or principle of that act.

But since action is a mean between the agent and the thing done, sometimes that which is covered by the preposition “through” is the cause of the action, as proceeding from the agent; and in that case it is thecause of why the agent acts, whether it be a final cause or a formal cause, whether it be effective or motive. It is a final cause when we say, for instance, that the artisan works through love of gain. It is a formal cause when we say that he works through his art. It is a motive cause when we say that he works through the command of another.

Sometimes, however, that which is covered by this preposition “through” is the cause of the action regarded as terminated in the thing done; as, for instance, when we say, the artisan acts through the mallet, for this does not mean that the mallet is the cause why the artisan acts, but that it is the cause why the thing made proceeds from the artisan, and that it has even this effect from the artisan. This is why it is sometimes said that this preposition “through” sometimes denotes direct authority, as when we say, the king works through the bailiff; and sometimes indirect authority, as when we say, the bailiff works through the king.

Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning.

Council of Florence:
“In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; 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.”
– Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1300-1301.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I still think the major problem is that we disagree on what exactly ousia and hypostasis denote. If we could at least find some agreement there, perhaps we’d have at least some sort of starting point.

 

[Marybeloved]

I still think the major problem is that we disagree on what exactly ousia and hypostasis denote. If we could at least find some agreement there, perhaps we’d have at least some sort of starting point.

Perharps you were on to something in your previous suggestion that we might drop the ancient terms and use the more modern common languages to explain our beliefs and only try to associate it with the ancient usages after we are clear in our understanding of each other.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

I still think the major problem is that we disagree on what exactly ousia and hypostasis denote. If we could at least find some agreement there, perhaps we’d have at least some sort of starting point.

That is an excellent suggestion.

I’ll start off:

Hypostasis refers to the UNIQUE IDENTITY of the Divine Being.

Ousia refers to WHAT IS COMMON in the Godhead, with the Father being the sole SOURCE. Ousia, in short, is the quality of Divinity. It is what makes each Person equally God.

From my understanding, hypostasis and ousia are intimately and inseparably linked. The hypostasis cannot exist without the ousia, though they are distinct. So while the Son does not participate in the generation of the hypostasis of the Spirit, he does participate in the communication of the Divine Essence (and Energy) from the Father to the Spirit (since, as Scripture and the Fathers teach, all that the Spirit has, He receives from the Son). But since the hypostasis cannot exist without the ousia (since the two are inseparably linked), the Son must be linked to the hypostasis of the Spirit in some way (not indeed in terms of originating the hypostasis, but He is linked to “the maintenance of its existence” in some way).

But I need to go, and will not have time to engage in this great conversation until the weekend.

Meanwhile, please let me know with what part(s) of my explanation you agree, with what part(s) you disagree, and for what part(s) you have questions.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Oh, you mean while you were running around in circles in your previous post trying to justify what the Easterns mean by perpetuating the confusion

And the East believes it is you who are confused. Round and round we go.

Otherwise, you’re just irritating that big log in your eye.

Check your own log. It is you who have to justify the addition to the creed. Your arguments are unconvincing.

 

[Mickey]

Have you been reading the same postings I have?

Yes.

The Fathers by Mardukm’s and Ghosty’s testimony express the nuances and differences which have been explained to you and us so clearly:

They enjoy twisting the interpretations of the Fathers to fit their theories. If Ghosty and Marduk have figured out the solution to an issue that has divided the Church for more than 1000 years…then they should be appointed to the Orthodox/Catholic theological dialogue.

Why don’t you understand it?

I understand it fine. Pope Leo IV did not have to explain obscure analogies refering to bodies of water when he wrote the creed on two tablets for the tomb of St Peter. You see…Rome added a phrase to the Filioque that was unacceptable to the East. The West has been trying to justify it ever since.

 

[Mickey]

Forgive me for being so blunt… but in my opinion, Mickey participation in this thread really destroy the whole discussion .

Mickey was not going to participate in the umpteenth thread on the filioque until Marduk used his name in a post …attempting to further his filioquist theories.

 

[Mickey]

The Latin Church, by asserting the idea that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Holy Spirit, has fallen into a form of Sabellian modalism, because both begetting and spiration are personal properties of the Father alone, and as personal (hypostatic) properties, they cannot be shared with any other person in the Trinity, or the real distinction between the hypostases collapses.

One further difficulty results from the Latin doctrine which holds that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Spirit, and it is focused upon the nature of the unity of the Godhead. It is an ancient principle of Catholic Triadology that anything that is common to two of the hypostases of the Trinity, is common to all three hypostases, because of their common essence (ousia); in other words, if the Father and the Son are a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Spirit must also be a “single principle” with them in His own spiration, and that is clearly nonsensical. The hypostases of the Trinity are only distinguished by their unique hypostatic properties (idiotes), and so anything that is common to the Father and the Son, must also be common to the Holy Spirit. As St. Basil said, “The Spirit shares titles held in common by the Father and the Son; He receives these titles due to His natural and intimate relationship with them.”

Thus, the idea that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves a confusion of hypostasis and essence (ousia) within the Godhead, because anything common to the hypostases is founded upon the one divine essence (ousia) that they share, and that is why the Western notion that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the procession of the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis is theologically unworkable. Therefore, to hold that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” of origin in relation to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves either Sabellian modalism, or an essential subordination of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, because He does not possess a common quality shared by the Father and the Son, and consequently must be essentially distinct and subordinate in relation to them.

St. John Damascene’s doctrine of perichoresis allows the distinct hypostases to indwell each other, while remaining truly distinct, and that is why the Spirit, which is properly the Spirit of the Father, is also the Spirit of the Son, but as St. John goes on to say, “. . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son.” Clearly, there is no filioque in the theology of St. John Damascene…

Moreover, St. John Damascene does not reduce the hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence as do most Western theologians (for example St. Thomas Aquinas), nor does he fail to distinguish between essence (ousia) and hypostasis as Westerners since the time of St. Augustine have tended to do.
sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

 

[Mickey]

The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation issued a text on the filioque more than a decade ago. There were two points I found rather interesting:
(3) that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;

(6) that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.

 

[mardukm]

I find I must take the time to refute this polemical treatise given by Mickey.

The Latin Church, by asserting the idea that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Holy Spirit, has fallen into a form of Sabellian modalism, because both begetting and spiration are personal properties of the Father alone, and as personal (hypostatic) properties, they cannot be shared with any other person in the Trinity, or the real distinction between the hypostases collapses.

The writer is simply failing to understand what spiration is. The act of spirating involves two things - (1) the origination of hypostasis, and (2) the communication of divine properties. The first is of the Father alone, while the second is from the Father through the Son. The two elements form one act of spirating. So while there is one act of spirating, the Father retains His unique property as Source. Thus, there is no confusion of hypostases, and no Sabellianism.

One further difficulty results from the Latin doctrine which holds that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Spirit, and it is focused upon the nature of the unity of the Godhead. It is an ancient principle of Catholic Triadology that anything that is common to two of the hypostases of the Trinity, is common to all three hypostases, because of their common essence (ousia);

False, once again, because the writer fails to realize that the Father always retains his unique property as Source. Though there is ONE act of spirating, within that ONE act is one Person acting as SOURCE, and another acting as INTERMEDIARY. Further, while it is true that the Father and Son are both involved in the one act of Spirating, it is NOT true that they are involved because of their common Essence. The writer has explained the Catholic Triadology correctly, but the principle he expresses (“what is common to two is common to all because of the common Essence”) is not the working principle involved in the common act of Spiration. The Spiration is held in common NOT because the Father and Son share a common Essence, but because of the natural activity of the Father as Source, and the natural activity of the Son as Intermediary working as one in the act of Spiration.

in other words, if the Father and the Son are a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Spirit must also be a “single principle” with them in His own spiration, and that is clearly nonsensical.

What is nonsensical is the conclusion of the writer, because he fails to understand that the Father and the Son retain their hypostatic properties in the ONE act of Spiration. It is not as if the hypostatic properties are confused in the one act of Spiration (the Father does not become Intermediary, nor does the Son become Source in the once act of Spiration, but each retains their hypostatic properties in the one act of Spiration).

The hypostases of the Trinity are only distinguished by their unique hypostatic properties (idiotes), and so anything that is common to the Father and the Son, must also be common to the Holy Spirit.

Just because the Father and Son share a common activity does not necessitate that they give up their unique hypostatic properties. For example, the Father and Son share in the act of Creation. Who is bold enough to claim that the hypostatic properties of the Father and the Son are confused because they share in this common activity? The writer’s confusion is utterly artificial and forced, and has no basis in any biblical logic.

As St. Basil said, “The Spirit shares titles held in common by the Father and the Son; He receives these titles due to His natural and intimate relationship with them.”

:banghead: The writer quotes a statement that refutes his very claims. No matter if they share these things in common, there is no confusion of hypostatic properties because it is always the Spirit that RECEIVES from the Father THROUGH the Son. Even if one pretends that the Spirit shares in the act of Spiration, their hypostatic properties will remain, and the Spirit will always be the one RECEIVING the “energy” of Spiration from the Father THROUGH the Son.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Thus, the idea that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves a confusion of hypostasis and essence (ousia) within the Godhead, because anything common to the hypostases is founded upon the one divine essence (ousia) that they share,

Invalid conclusion because of the wrong premise (i.e., the Father and Son do NOT share in the act of Spiration because they share a common ousia).

and that is why the Western notion that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the procession of the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis is theologically unworkable.

The only thing unworkable is the writer’s logic, since he is basing his conclusions on false premises.

Therefore, to hold that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” of origin in relation to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves an essential subordination of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, because He does not possess a common quality shared by the Father and the Son, and consequently must be essentially distinct and subordinate in relation to them.

I recognize this logic - it is the one used by the Arians and the Pneumatomachi against the orthodox Fathers. The Arians claimed “well, since the Son does not share in the act of generation, he cannot be equal to the Father and thus subordinate.” Similarly, the Pneumatomachi claimed “since the Spirit does not share in the power of Procession (or the act of Spirating), he must be subordinate to the Father and Son.” The Fathers dealt with these nonsensical musings long ago, and Latin Catholics need not respond to these ludicrous accusations.

St. John Damascene’s doctrine of perichoresis allows the distinct hypostases to indwell each other, while remaining truly distinct, and that is why the Spirit, which is properly the Spirit of the Father, is also the Spirit of the Son, but as St. John goes on to say, “. . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son.” Clearly, there is no filioque in the theology of St. John Damascene…

The reason the Damascene says “we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son” is to combat Pneumatomachi who were claiming that the Spirit was a creature from the Son. The writer is simply wrenching this statement out of context. Latin Catholics do not claim that the Holy Spirit is a creature from the Son, so the text does not in the least apply to the issue regarding filioque.

Moreover, St. John Damascene does not reduce the hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence as do most Western theologians (for example St. Thomas Aquinas),

I confess I’ve never understood what this criticism means, though I used to parrot it long ago. I know that the Fathers ALL assert that the identifying uniqueness of each Person is reflected in their Names. How is this different from describing the hypostases according to their relations to one another?

nor does he fail to distinguish between essence (ousia) and hypostasis as Westerners since the time of St. Augustine have tended to do.

Actually, our conversations in this thread lead me to believe that the confusion between ousia and hypostasis actually exists only in the rhetoric used by certain EO, not in the actual teaching of the Catholic Church. As asserted in the Official Clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory, the language of “cause” as regards the Son has always been used by the Latins in reference to the ousia, not the hypostasis. If there is any confusion, it is in the minds of EO polemicists who are confused about what the Latins teach.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

The writer is simply failing to understand what spiration is.

The writer, a Melkite Catholic, consistently refutes your erroneous claims each time you debate this subject with him.

 

[mardukm]

The writer, a Melkite Catholic, consistently refutes your erroneous claims each time you debate this subject with him.

Please invite him to come here and discuss the matter with us. I would like to read his rejoinders to what I wrote in response to his treatise.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

If there is any confusion, it is in the minds of EO polemicists who are confused about what the Latins teach.

That’s humorous.

The Latins add the filioque clause to the creed…try to justify its usage by saying they are misunderstood and or mistranslated…in the end they cry polemics and blame the East for being confused. Good one Markud!

1000 plus years and it all comes down to a bunch of confused Orthodox polemicists.

Who’da thunk it?