Filioque - Distinguishing the Essence and Person of the Holy Spirit

[Marybeloved]

What Steven Todd Kaster states there is not a correct presentaion of the Latin Church teaching, particularly when he states:

“… the West has confused two distinct – but inseparable – divine realities: (1) the existential procession of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), which is from the Father alone; and (2) the Spirit’s eternal manifestation as divine energy (i.e., as uncreated grace), which is from the Father through the Son.”

Vico,

Maybe you can help me with this: what is this “manifestation” of the Holy Spirit that is eternal? It seems to say that there’s a movement outside the divine essence that is also eternal like the Divine essence- But how can that be? Would that not make God dependent on a thing/activity outside himself, in order to be fully himself?

My reasons for believing the Christian concept of God as Trinity as opposed to the mono-person, monotheism (if I can call it that), is that Trinity makes God utterly independent of anything outside himself. The one person monotheism is reduced to seeing God in his relation to his creation- As the one Creator, which makes him dependent on activities outside himself. Beyond creation, beyond any activity of God beyond himself- when on God alone is- who is he? The Christian Trinity is the most perfect way of conceiving God beyond his acts of creation.

An external manifestation suggests an eternal act of God outside himself which seems to rob God of his utter, unlimited, eternal self-existence, independent of any other external act. For us, the West seems to say that God’s acts in time confer on us Grace- the acts that communicate it are temporal, but the Grace is itself God/eternal.

I find the idea of God’s energies as expressed here thoroughly strange, if I’m to be honest. If the E-E distinction simply means the difference between our limits in our participation in God and what of God remains beyond that, then that is agreeable, to me. But the manner in which it is explained is focused on distinctions in God himself- His essence and energies, his internal being and eternal being, not on us and our limited capacities.

I personally like the metaphor often used in the West, seen in how St. Therese’s older sister explained to the little flower how we could all have different degrees of the beatific vision (heaven). Each one has a cup, some have bigger cups than others, the Virgin has the largest cup of us all, excluding the Lord’s most holy humanity. God is the vast and endless ocean. We all fill with the same filling (water) which is the shared life of the Trinity- the Life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, internal to them and eternal. But we can only fill our capacities (cups) and no more. We are filled to the fullest extent that we can receive and no more. That’s the classic Western understanding.

So I can understand that God being God, will never fit into our cups, even that of the Lord’s sacred humanity which must be the greatest possible for any creature that can ever come from God’s hands. Our focuss is not on a distinction on the Divine nature itself, it’s exactly ONE kind of nature to us- each part of this nature (if we could speak like this, for lack of better language) is absolutely fully 100% and without any lessening whatsoever God- fully Divine, all unlimited eternal essence! Absolutely nothing in God is less than the absolute divinity. I could understand if essence was just focussed on the fact that it is God himself we know, his true essence, but that we can know him only according to our creaturely limits and capacities. No matter how full of God we creatures are, however great the creature (here imagine the Lord’s sacred humanity), God will always transcend us- always, forever, eternally. This is perfectly acceptable and is indeed what we in the West believe.

But speaking of distinctions as if they exist in God’s nature itself? I honestly can’t help but see this as heretical, if that is indeed the true Orthodox teaching- I’m hoping it’s not and that what they mean is the Western understanding in the metaphor of the tiny limited cup in the Vast ocean that is God. That essence only means the great ocean that remains beyond the largest cup of the highest creatures- It does not mean that what is in the cup is different from what is in the ocean, a different thing called energies, while what in the ocean is outside the full cup of the creature is a different thing altogether . Only that the cup is filled with the true ocean but only to its uttermost capacity and no more, and this is always infinitely less than the ocean.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Vico,

Maybe you can help me with this: what is this “manifestation” of the Holy Spirit that is eternal? It seems to say that there’s a movement outside the divine essence that is also eternal like the Divine essence- But how can that be? Would that not make God dependent on a thing/activity outside himself, in order to be fully himself?

My reasons for believing the Christian concept of God as Trinity as opposed to the mono-person, monotheism (if I can call it that), is that Trinity makes God utterly independent of anything outside himself. The one person monotheism is reduced to seeing God in his relation to his creation- As the one Creator, which makes him dependent on activities outside himself. Beyond creation, beyond any activity of God beyond himself- when on God alone is- who is he? The Christian Trinity is the most perfect way of conceiving God beyond his acts of creation.

An external manifestation suggests an eternal act of God outside himself which seems to rob God of his utter, unlimited, eternal self-existence, independent of any other external act. For us, the West seems to say that God’s acts in time confer on us Grace- the acts that communicate it are temporal, but the Grace is itself God/eternal.

I find the idea of God’s energies as expressed here thoroughly strange, if I’m to be honest. If the E-E distinction simply means the difference between our limits in our participation in God and what of God remains beyond that, then that is agreeable, to me. But the manner in which it is explained is focused on distinctions in God himself- His essence and energies, his internal being and eternal being, not on us and our limited capacities.

I personally like the metaphor often used in the West, seen in how St. Therese’s older sister explained to the little flower how we could all have different degrees of the beatific vision (heaven). Each one has a cup, some have bigger cups than others, the Virgin has the largest cup of us all, excluding the Lord’s most holy humanity. God is the vast and endless ocean. We all fill with the same filling (water) which is the shared life of the Trinity- the Life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, internal to them and eternal. But we can only fill our capacities (cups) and no more. We are filled to the fullest extent that we can receive and no more. That’s the classic Western understanding.

So I can understand that God being God, will never fit into our cups, even that of the Lord’s sacred humanity which must be the greatest possible for any creature that can ever come from God’s hands. Our focuss is not on a distinction on the Divine nature itself, it’s exactly ONE kind of nature to us- each part of this nature (if we could speak like this, for lack of better language) is absolutely fully 100% and without any lessening whatsoever God- fully Divine, all unlimited eternal essence! Absolutely nothing in God is less than the absolute divinity. I could understand if essence was just focussed on the fact that it is God himself we know, his true essence, but that we can know him only according to our creaturely limits and capacities. No matter how full of God we creatures are, however great the creature (here imagine the Lord’s sacred humanity), God will always transcend us- always, forever, eternally. This is perfectly acceptable and is indeed what we in the West believe.

But speaking of distinctions as if they exist in God’s nature itself? I honestly can’t help but see this as heretical, if that is indeed the true Orthodox teaching- I’m hoping it’s not and that what they mean is the Western understanding in the metaphor of the tiny limited cup in the Vast ocean that is God. That essence only means the great ocean that remains beyond the largest cup of the highest creatures- It does not mean that what is in the cup is different from what is in the ocean, a different thing called energies, while what in the ocean is outside the full cup of the creature is a different thing altogether . Only that the cup is filled with the true ocean but only to its uttermost capacity and no more, and this is always infinitely less than the ocean.

Strictly speaking, the common essence of the Godhead properly refers to the shared divinity of the trinity. In Eastern thought, the essence is impossible for us to comprehend, because divinity transcends creation. This is why you’ll see some church fathers who say things like if we exist, then God does not exist, because He does not exist in the same way that we do (He is beyond existence). Owing to the transcendence of God’s essence, there then must be a way for God to interact with creation, which is what the divine energies are. The essence-energies distinction does not, however, introduce division into God any more than professing that God has a will does (that is, the will of God is definitely distinct from the essence, but it does not somehow divide God into parts).

 

[Marybeloved]

Strictly speaking, the common essence of the Godhead properly refers to the shared divinity of the trinity. In Eastern thought, the essence is impossible for us to comprehend, because divinity transcends creation. This is why you’ll see some church fathers who say things like if we exist, then God does not exist, because He does not exist in the same way that we do (He is beyond existence). Owing to the transcendence of God’s essence, there then must be a way for God to interact with creation, which is what the divine energies are. The essence-energies distinction does not, however, introduce division into God any more than professing that God has a will does (that is, the will of God is definitely distinct from the essence, but it does not somehow divide God into parts).

Thanks for this explanation.

About the bold part above- I’m very OK with this, but then if the energies are about interacting with creation, then they are temporal acts like the creation to which they are connected, are they not? And creation does not exist as of necessity or eternally, like God. So why would God, the self-susbsistent being from eternity who exists as of necessity, have an eternal attribute forming part of his* nature/himself*, but yet an attribute wholly functioning in connection with external non-eternal beings- creatures?

To me then, the energies can have nothing at all to with God’s own nature and how he exists eternally- they cannot be eternal, and not a part of God. For example, before there was a single creation ever, God was eternally, Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one nature- This has nothing whatever to do with creatures, it’s about God alone- Who and what he is. So at this stage (with no one but God in existence) we have God alone, the three divine persons: Do we have the energies? What are they manifesting to and for what purpose since only God is eternal and none else is in existence?

I hope you can see my confusion. God’s will, intellect, goodness, love etc- Have absolutely no connection to anything outside the divine nature, they are not about enabling God to do anything outside himself- so that comparison does not address my queries.

If the energies are in God the way the Divine will is, then they can have nothing whatever to do with external manifestations- that would already be a relationship with something outside God, so how can it be a part of the eternal God the way the Divine will or the divine wisdom are? For example, had God not created anything at all (he did not have to) would the external manifestations/energies exist? What would be their point? And if no (they would not exist) then they cannot in anyway be said to be attributes of God- nothing of God exists solely to relate to non-divinity. Unless we say that God had to create as of necessity, I don’t understand how the energies are not simply temporal acts of God communication the eternal Divine (one) nature to creatures, which means they have nothing what ever to do with how God exists eternally.

What do you think?

Peace.

 

[Mickey]

St. Aquinas expressed how the persons indwell in one another:

………the failure to make a real distinction between ousia and hypostasis, as St. Thomas fails to do, inevitably leads to Sabellianism, as Christopher Hughes puts it in his critique of the Thomist Triadology, “Surely if (a) the essence of x = the essence of y, and (b) the essence of x = x, and the essence of y = y, it follows as the night does the day that x = y. And Aquinas maintains both that the divine persons are not distinct from their essences, and that they all have the same essence.” In other words, the Father (x) is the Son , and the Son is the Father, and the same holds in relation to the Spirit. Now it should be noted that the first point (a) of Aquinas’ theory conforms to the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers, but that the second point (b) does not; in fact, the second point conforms to the teaching of Sabellius and not to the theological doctrine of the Cappadocians. Moreover, Aquinas’ error is confirmed by what St. Basil said in Letter 236, where he called those who fail to distinguish between essence (or nature) and hypostasis in God, “Sabellians”; for as St. Basil said, “On the other hand those who identify essence (ousian) or substance and hypostasis are compelled to confess only three persons (prosopa), and, in their hesitation to speak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even Sabellius himself, who in many places confuses the conception, yet, by asserting that the same hypostasis changed its form to meet the needs of the moment, does endeavour to distinguish persons (prosopa).” [St. Basil, Letter 236] St. Thomas, in certain sense, is even more of a modalist than Sabellius, because Sabellius could at least admit that there are prosopic distinctions in God, while Thomas’ theory of divine simplicity does not admit of any real distinctions.
sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

 

[Mickey]

To me then, the energies can have nothing at all to [do] with God’s own nature and how he exists eternally

The energies of God are divine energies. They too are God, but without being His essence. They are God, and therefore they can deify man. If the energies of God were not divine and uncreated, they would not be God and so they would not be able to deify us, to unite us with God. There would be an unbridgeable distance between God and men. But by virtue of God having divine energies, and by uniting with us by these energies, we are able to commune with Him and to unite with His Grace without becoming identical with God, as would happen if we united with His essence.

So, we unite with God through His uncreated energies, and not through His essence. This is the mystery of our Orthodox faith and life.

Archimandrite George
Abbott of the Holy Monastery of St. Gregorios on Mount Athos

 

[Marybeloved]

The energies of God are divine energies. They too are God, but without being His essence.

How can they be God and not be his essence? Isn’t the essence what God is? So you think that God has parts of him that are not fully and absolutely Divine- not his own essence?

They are God, and therefore they can deify man.

So how come they can be known yet the essence can not? They are somehow less Divine than the essence so that they are accessible to us when the essence is not…right? They are God but not fully God? How can that possibly be? Then quite simply, they are NOT God- God is fully God through and through.

There would be an unbridgeable distance between God and men.

So the energies close the gap, meaning they are not fully God. But if that is so- they cannot be God at all. No part of God is less than Absolutely Divine- fully and 100%.

But by virtue of God having divine energies, and by uniting with us by these energies, we are able to commune with Him and to unite with His Grace without becoming identical with God, as would happen if we united with His essence.

But if the energies are also God like the essence, as you said before, then whether by them or the essence, one is still communing with God directly. So, if communing with God’s essence makes one identical with him, then so must communing with the energies of God make you so, because those energies are, like you say God himself, just like the essence.

So, we unite with God through His uncreated energies, and not through His essence. This is the mystery of our Orthodox faith and life.

But God is just one, and he is not made of parts. Moreover, nothing in him at all, no part of him can be less than the full absolute divinity of God. If it was even an inch less than the full infinite divine being/essence, it would simply not be God. God is through and through absolute Divinity, nothing in him is less than that. That would make it other than God.

Cavaradossi had said earlier that it refers only to our own limits, and not any actual distinctions in God himself; this makes much more sense than what you’re saying. So we cannot speak of energies as being different from what* God is* (divine essence) and still claim that they are God. This just sounds like direct contradiction. It seems that even with the Orthodox, the meaning is not understood uniformly. But I much agree with the first sense (our own limits) than the sense that says that there are parts of God’s nature somehow different than other parts.

Peace.

 

[Mickey]

How can they be God and not be his essence?

There’s a lot here. But it is fascinating reading. You may want to jump to the heading of “Hagiorite Tome.”

Enjoy!

pelagia.org/htm/b16.en.saint_gregory_palamas_as_a_hagiorite.00.htm

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Ok, after reading Marduk’s definition of hypostasis and ousia, I have this to say in response. We agree that ousia reflects the common divinity of the trinity. We seem to disagree on what hypostasis means. From the Orthodox perspective, hypostasis is not just the personal characteristics of a person, but the complete existence of a person. This is how Blachernae defines the term, referring to a definition of St. Maximus the Confessor who says that hypostasis is essence accompanied by individual characteristics, and Basil who similarly says that hypostasis calls to mind what is common, which cannot be described only by personal characteristics.

I don’t think we’re disagreeing on the meaning of hypostasis either. If you recall, I asserted several times that the ousia is an inseparable element of the hypostasis (along with the Energy).

If the ousia is an indispensable element of the hypostasis, what does it mean then, that the ousia procedit/proienai from the Son, as the Fathers testify? That is the issue here. Your Tradition claims that the Son has absolutely no role in (1) the origination of the hypostasis of the Spirit and (2) the existence of the hypostasis of the Spirit.

You, as an Orthodox, understand the principle that we cannot be in unity at the expense of Truth. Catholicism can agree with the first item above, but never with the second, because the Fathers clearly testify that, the ousia being an indispensable and inseparable element of the hypostasis, the Spirit receives the ousia from the Father through the Son (or from the Son as second cause).

Here are some more quotes from Eastern/Oriental Fathers for you to consider:

“For as the Son, who is in the Father and the Father in him, is not a creature but pertains to the essence of the Father (for this you also profess to say); so also it is not lawful to rank with the creatures the Spirit who is in the Son, and the Son in him”
Pope St. Athanasius,To Serapion,I:21(A.D. 360)

“For He, as as been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word.”
Pope St. Athanasius,Against the Arians,III:24(A.D. 362)

“The Holy Spirit … is ever with the Father and the Son, and is from God, proceeding from the Father and receiving of the Son.”
St. Epiphanius,The Man Well-Anchored,7(A.D. 374)

“Even if the Holy Spirit is third in diginity and order, why need he be third also in nature? For that he is second to the Son, having his being from him and receiving from him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on him, pious tradition recounts.”
St. Basil, Against Eunomius,3, PG 29:653B(A.D. 365)

“One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity.”
St. Basil,On the Holy Spirit,18:45(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VIII:28

“Thus the way of the knowledge of God lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost.”
St. Basil,On the Holy Spirit,18:47(A.D. 375)

“One Father, one Son, one Holy Spirit must be confessed according to the divine tradition. Not two Fathers, nor two Sons, since the Spirit neither is the Son nor is called. For we do NOT receive anything from the Spirit in the SAME way as the Spirit from the Son; but we receive him (ie. the Spirit) coming to us and sanctifying us, the communication of divinity, the pledge of eternal inheritance, and the first fruits of the eternal good.”
St. Basil,Homilies,PG 31:1433(ante A.D. 379)

“If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not.”
St. Gregory of Nazianen,5th Oration(31),3(A.D. 380)

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

“Our Lord teaches that the being of the Spirit is derived not from the Spirit Himself, but from the Father and the Son; He goes forth from the Son, proceeding from the Truth; He has no subsistence but that which is given Him by the Son.”
St. Didymus the Blind,The Holy Spirit, 37(ante A.D. 381)

“For as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit’s subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself; and to It is glory due.”
St. Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,1:42(A.D. 384)

“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.”
St. Gregory of Nyssa,To Ablabius-There are not three gods(A.D. 375)

“He is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son, seeing that He is poured forth in a way of essence from Both or in other words, from the Father through the Son.”
St. Cyril of Alexandria,Worship and Adoration,1(A.D. 429)

"Those of the Queen of the cities(Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them says:‘The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis(ekporeuesthai) from the Son’. The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they(the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause(aitian) of the Spirit–they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis(procession)–but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence."
St. Maximus the Confessor,To Marinus(A.D. 655)

“[T]he Holy Spirit, as He is by nature and in the way of essence [the Spirit] of God the Father, so is He also the Son’s by nature and in the way of essence, since He proceeds from the Father essentially and ineffably through the Son, who is begotten.”
St. Maximus the Confessor,Quaestiones ad Thalassium, 63(ante A.D. 662)

“The Holy Spirit is the power of the Father making secrets of the deity known and proceeding from the Father through the Son in a way that he knows, but which is not begetting… The Father is source of the Son and the Holy Spirit…The Spirit is not the Son of the Father, he is the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from him(ekporeuomenon),…but he is also Spirit of the Son, not as (proceeding) from him, but proceeding through him from the Father. Only the Father is cause(aitios).”
St. John of Damascus,Orthodox Faith,I:12(A.D. 712)

“I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him.”
St. John of Damascus,Against the Manicheans, 5 (ante A.D. 749)

“[T’]he Holy Spirit, Lord and giver of Life, proceeding (ekproeusai) from the Father through the Son.”
Council of Nicea II(A.D. 787),Profession of Faith(Patriarch Tarasius).

Note that none of these quotes can be rationalized away by claiming they refer only to the economic activity of the Trinity.

Let’s discuss further, please.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

Strictly speaking, the common essence of the Godhead properly refers to the shared divinity of the trinity. In Eastern thought, the essence is impossible for us to comprehend, because divinity transcends creation. This is why you’ll see some church fathers who say things like if we exist, then God does not exist, because He does not exist in the same way that we do (He is beyond existence). Owing to the transcendence of God’s essence, there then must be a way for God to interact with creation, which is what the divine energies are. The essence-energies distinction does not, however, introduce division into God any more than professing that God has a will does (that is, the will of God is definitely distinct from the essence, but it does not somehow divide God into parts).

Here’s my issue as an Oriental:

The Synod of Blarchanae and St. Gregory Palamas clearly teach that the Energetic procession (or manifestation) is in the ETERNAL realm. But God fills the Eternal realm. Nothing else BUT God exists in the eternal realm. EVERYTHING in the Eternal realm MUST be AN INTERNAL ACTIVITY OF GOD. My question to you is: How can the Son participate in the Energetic Procession in Eternity, where no division between Essence and Energy exists, and still be cut off from the existence of the hypostasis of the Spirit, since the Essence is an intimate and inseparable element of the hypostasis.

Here’s the simple syllogism:

(1) The Son participates in the Energetic procession/manifestation in Eternity;
(2) There is no division of Energy and Essence (ousia) in Eternity;
(3) If the Son participates in an Energetic procession (proienai), He must also participate in the Essential procession (proienai).
(4) If the Essence is an inseperable element of the hypostasis (with which you have indicated you agree), and the Essence/Energy of the Spirit comes from the Son, how can EO claim that the Son has absolutely no role in the existence of the hypostasis of the Spirit?

Remember - Catholics can agree that the origination of the hypostasis is a property of the Father alone, but the existence of the hypostasis is another thing altogether.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

Here’s my issue as an Oriental:

The Synod of Blarchanae and St. Gregory Palamas clearly teach that the Energetic procession (or manifestation) is in the ETERNAL realm. But God fills the Eternal realm. Nothing else BUT God exists in the eternal realm. EVERYTHING in the Eternal realm MUST be AN INTERNAL ACTIVITY OF GOD. My question to you is: How can the Son participate in the Energetic Procession in Eternity, where no division between Essence and Energy exists, and still be cut off from the existence of the hypostasis of the Spirit, since the Essence is an intimate and inseparable element of the hypostasis.

Here’s the simple syllogism:

(1) The Son participates in the Energetic procession/manifestation in Eternity;
(2) There is no division of Energy and Essence (ousia) in Eternity;
(3) If the Son participates in an Energetic procession (proienai), He must also participate in the Essential procession (proienai).
(4) If the Essence is an inseperable element of the hypostasis (with which you have indicated you agree), and the Essence/Energy of the Spirit comes from the Son, how can EO claim that the Son has absolutely no role in the existence of the hypostasis of the Spirit?

Remember - Catholics can agree that the origination of the hypostasis is a property of the Father alone, but the existence of the hypostasis is another thing altogether.

Blessings
Marduk

That last statement in plain English is the most telling. We can talk about essences, hypostaseis, and energies all we want, but it will come to no avail if the Catholic position is that the Son contributes to the actual existence of the Holy Spirit. That is absolutely irreconcilable with Orthodox triadology.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

That last statement in plain English is the most telling. We can talk about essences, hypostaseis, and energies all we want, but it will come to no avail if the Catholic position is that the Son contributes to the actual existence of the Holy Spirit. That is absolutely irreconcilable with Orthodox triadology.

I understand that is is irreconcilable from your pov.

What I am asking is how the EO today have come to the conclusion that the Son has absolutely no role in the existence of the Holy Spirit. I would like for you to

(1) Analyze the syllogism I presented and let me know what is wrong with it from your perspective.

(2) Analyze the quotes from the Eastern and Oriental Fathers I gave. Which of those quotes claim that the Son has absolutely no role in the existence of the Holy Spirit?

You and other EO have certainly quoted a few Eastern Fathers for what seems like support of your position, but your quotes as you intend them to mean don’t seem to match the CONTEXT of other quotes from those same Fathers as given in my previous post (i.e., the Damascene, St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen). At best, your own quotes support the idea that the origination of hypostasis is of the Father alone, but they certainly don’t support the idea that the existence of the hypostasis is devoid of the participation of the Son (since the Spirit derives His ousia from the Son).

I hope we can continue this conversation. I’m just trying to undestand the EO position more clearly, trying to comprehend the underlying assumptions, which (I propose) does not match the witness of the early Church, except for a few choice quotes which do not actually stand up to a CONTEXTUAL consideration from those same Fathers.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Marybeloved:

How can they be God and not be his essence? Isn’t the essence what God is? So you think that God has parts of him that are not fully and absolutely Divine- not his own essence?

The Divine Energy is not a substance of its own, but the activity of God. What God is is the Divine Essence, what God “does” is the Divine Energy. Energy is the “movement” of a nature, the heat of the fire, the wetness of water, ect. Wetness is not the essence of water, but it is essential to water.

You can’t have a “cup of Divine Energy”, for example, since it’s not a subsistant thing of its own. It is always the manifestation of the inner Divine Essence.

Hope that helps!

Cavaradossi: The Fathers, East and West, are quite unanimous in saying that the Holy Spirit exists “through” the Son, and not merely economically manifested through the Son. This is the problem I have with the modern Eastern Orthodox arguments against the filioque: they do not follow the teaching of the Fathers, which is all I care about. I support the filioque (as a teaching, not necessarily in the Creed), properly understood, because it was taught by the Fathers of our tradition, not because it is the Latin teaching.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

This is the problem I have with the modern Eastern Orthodox arguments against the filioque:

I think the overwhelming majority of the Fathers are in line with the Orthodox teaching. Furthermore, the English translation states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son…not from the Father through the Son.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Marybeloved: The Divine Energy is not a substance of its own, but the activity of God. What God is is the Divine Essence, what God “does” is the Divine Energy. Energy is the “movement” of a nature, the heat of the fire, the wetness of water, ect. Wetness is not the essence of water, but it is essential to water.

You can’t have a “cup of Divine Energy”, for example, since it’s not a subsistant thing of its own. It is always the manifestation of the inner Divine Essence.

Hope that helps!

Cavaradossi: The Fathers, East and West, are quite unanimous in saying that the Holy Spirit exists “through” the Son, and not merely economically manifested through the Son. This is the problem I have with the modern Eastern Orthodox arguments against the filioque: they do not follow the teaching of the Fathers, which is all I care about. I support the filioque (as a teaching, not necessarily in the Creed), properly understood, because it was taught by the Fathers of our tradition, not because it is the Latin teaching.

Peace and God bless!

Yes, but energetic manifestation is not economic, it is for all eternity.

 

[Ghosty]

Yes, but energetic manifestation is not economic, it is for all eternity.

Define “energetic manifestation” and we can talk more about it. As it stands the quotes Mardukm has provided, which are only a small sampling of such statements, clearly refer to the origin of essence and Person, not merely some kind of energetic manifestation.

For example, St. Maximos the Confessor says that the Holy Spirit is essentially from the Father, through the Son. He is clearly not making reference to manifestation, but the transmission of essence. Likewise with St. John of Damascus when he’s speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son, though he doesn’t make explicit reference to essence it is clear from the context that this is what he’s speaking of. St. Basil is most explicit of all, saying that the Holy Spirit has his being from the Son.

Earlier in this thread I gave an explanation of how “energetic manifestation” can be used to mean that the Holy Spirit is essentially from the Father through the Son, and that is the only reasonable way these quotes can be understood. I’m very interested in hearing how you square these statements of the Fathers with the notion that the Son does not participate in the “being” of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

Mickey: You’ll have to square these statements from the Fathers with the modern Orthodox understanding, then. Please do so.

As for the “and the Son” as opposed to “through the Son”, that has already been addressed in this thread and many others. Again, “and the Son” is the most correct way to say it in Latin; “through the Son”, while it can be understood in an orthodox manner, does not preserve the implication of consubstantiality as “per” is the term used for the creation of creatures.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Again, “and the Son” is the most correct way to say it in Latin

I said English…not Latin. “And” does not have the same meaning as “through” in the English language.

 

[Ghosty]

I said English…not Latin. “And” does not have the same meaning as “through” in the English language.

No, and proceed doesn’t have the same meaning as “ekporousis”, but we use it anyway. We make do with the best we can, and the general rule for translating Latin into English is to adhere as strictly to the original words as possible. I’m not asked my opinion by the ICEL for translations, and I’m not really a Latin aside from legal technicality, so I’ve got no say in that matter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Likewise with St. John of Damascus when he’s speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son, though he doesn’t make explicit reference to essence it is clear from the context that this is what he’s speaking of.

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.” [8] Clearly, there is no filioque in the theology of St. John Damascene, nor is there one in the theology of St. Gregory Palamas, and in fact both men directly reject the filioque as can be seen in the case of St. John from the quotation just given.
Moreover, St. John Damascene does not reduce the hypostases to mere relations of opposition 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. [9] Now as far as the Spirit’s existential origin is concerned, both St. John and St. Gregory hold that it comes from the Father alone, proof of this can be found by looking at what Fr. Andrew Louth wrote in his book on Damascene, because as he indicates, St. John “. . . speaks of the Holy Spirit as ‘the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him manifest and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence from Him.’ (St. John, Sabbat. 4:21-23).” [10] St. Gregory Palamas also teaches this, for as he put it, the “. . . pre-eternal rejoicing of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit who, as I said, is common to both, which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy. Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father.” [11] Thus, the Father alone gives existence to the hypostasis of the Spirit, and there can be no existential filioque. [12]
sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

 

[Mickey]

I’ve got no say in that matter.

Understood. But it sure seems like an easy fix.