Filioque - Distinguishing the Essence and Person of the Holy Spirit

[Ghosty]

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

That doesn’t even remotely address the point I raised. He leaves out the fact that right after St. John says “we do not speak of the Holy Spirit as from the Son” he says “we speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding through the Son, from the Father”. Selective editing to suppress the words of the Fathers is a very nasty thing.

If you plan to refute or address what I’m saying I recommend you do so with your own words, as Todd’s work doesn’t really apply to what we’re talking about.

Understood. But it sure seems like an easy fix.

The translation approach is to take directly from the Latin, not change the words. It would be inappropriate to translate “through” when “per” is not used in the text.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

For example, St. Maximos the Confessor says that the Holy Spirit is essentially from the Father, through the Son.

It should be noted that St. Maximos the Confessor (in the 7th century) defended the Latin Church’s use of the filioque, and held that it in no way harmed the sole causality of the Father, but that does not mean that St. Maximos would have accepted the Florentine decree on the filioque. In fact, it is likely that he would have had problems with the Florentine definition, because it appears to be contrary to what he said the Latins meant by the term in his own century. As Richard Haugh has pointed out, “When Maximos questioned the Latins about this, they appealed to the Latin Fathers and ‘even to St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel of John.’ Maximos, however, does his best to interpret the Latin doctrine of the Filioque along the Greek patristic lines, claiming that the Latins were ‘far from making the Son the cause of the Spirit, for they recognize the Father as the one cause of the Son and of the Spirit; the former by generation, the latter by procession.’ Maximos then states that the Latin Filioque was an attempt ‘to express the Spirit’s going forth through the Son’ and thus to establish the oneness and inseparable unity of their substance. Maximos also states that he admonished the Romans to be more careful in the usage and meaning of their expressions, adding that he thought the reaction from Constantinople would cause the Romans to be more cautious in the future.” [Richard Haugh. Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975). Page 33] Now of course it appears that by the 15th century the Latins had forgotten the importance of making the distinction between the existential procession of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father alone, and His manifestation or shining forth in the divine energy, which takes place through the Son, and that is why the Council of Florence went so far as to say 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 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.” [Roy J. Defarrari, page 219] St. Maximos, almost eight hundred years before the Council of Florence, insisted that the Latins were not making the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit with the filioque, but ironically enough, that is exactly what the Florentine definition insists is the case, for it declares* that the Son is a cause* of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.
sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

 

[Ghosty]

It should be noted that St. Maximos the Confessor (in the 7th century) defended the Latin Church’s use of the filioque, and held that it in no way harmed the sole causality of the Father, but that does not mean that St. Maximos would have accepted the Florentine decree on the filioque. In fact, it is likely that he would have had problems with the Florentine definition, because it appears to be contrary to what he said the Latins meant by the term in his own century. As Richard Haugh has pointed out, “When Maximos questioned the Latins about this, they appealed to the Latin Fathers and ‘even to St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel of John.’ Maximos, however, does his best to interpret the Latin doctrine of the Filioque along the Greek patristic lines, claiming that the Latins were ‘far from making the Son the cause of the Spirit, for they recognize the Father as the one cause of the Son and of the Spirit; the former by generation, the latter by procession.’ Maximos then states that the Latin Filioque was an attempt ‘to express the Spirit’s going forth through the Son’ and thus to establish the oneness and inseparable unity of their substance. Maximos also states that he admonished the Romans to be more careful in the usage and meaning of their expressions, adding that he thought the reaction from Constantinople would cause the Romans to be more cautious in the future.” [Richard Haugh. Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975). Page 33] Now of course it appears that by the 15th century the Latins had forgotten the importance of making the distinction between the existential procession of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father alone, and His manifestation or shining forth in the divine energy, which takes place through the Son, and that is why the Council of Florence went so far as to say 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 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.” [Roy J. Defarrari, page 219] St. Maximos, almost eight hundred years before the Council of Florence, insisted that the Latins were not making the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit with the filioque, but ironically enough, that is exactly what the Florentine definition insists is the case, for it declares* that the Son is a cause* of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.

sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

Again, use your own words. Todd doesn’t understand the Latin use of the term “cause” so his work is useless here. Furthermore, St. Maximos did indeed say that the Holy Spirit exists through the Son, so St. Maximos does not agree with Todd’s assessment.

You’re using his sloppy work as a crutch, and it’s serving you poorly.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Selective editing to suppress the words of the Fathers is a very nasty thing.

Selective editing? Nasty? Please don’t turn this thread into a plethora of accusations. We don’t need that.

The translation approach is to take directly from the Latin

Then according to you…it should read from the Father through the Son…if taken from the Latin.

 

[Mickey]

Again, use your own words.

Todd’s work is excellent…and I feel it refutes most of your arguments.

You’re using his sloppy work as a crutch

Why must you continue to degrade this thread?

 

[Ghosty]

Selective editing? Nasty? Please don’t turn this thread into a plethora of accusations. We don’t need that.

It’s not an accusation, it’s a fact. He left out the rest of the quote in order to support an argument that doesn’t follow from the actual text. He chose where to cut off the quote, and that makes it selective editing. I consider such practices to be nasty, who ever is doing them. You may not like me saying so, but since you insist on using his words rather than your own I’ll have to address them and explain why they are unreliable.

Then according to you…it should read from the Father through the Son…if taken from the Latin.

No, the Latin reads “Ex Patre Filioque procedit”, which literally translates to “proceeds from Father and the Son”. Since the rest of the Creed is translated literally, not dynamically, this portion should also be translated literally.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Todd’s work is excellent…and I feel it refutes most of your arguments.

Then I question your ability to judge excellence in academic work. Generally speaking, selectively cutting quotes to reverse their meaning and prove an argument that wasn’t made by the original author is considered very poor form in scholarly work.

You may feel it refutes most of my arguments, and I can’t change how you feel, but I won’t refrain from pointing out the flaws in his work. Plus there’s the fact that the portions of his work you’re quoting don’t actually address the points I’m raising.

Why must you continue to degrade this thread?

I’m simply explaining why I consider his work sloppy and unreliable. Since you insist on using his work rather than presenting your own arguments I think it’s important for me to show where and how his work goes wrong. You can’t expect his work to be presented without any response from me.

 

[Mickey]

right after St. John says “we do not speak of the Holy Spirit as from the Son” he says “we speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding through the Son, from the Father”.

“t should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father.* And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son***.”

In other words, the fact that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son does not mean that He takes His hypostatic origin from the Son.

 

[Mickey]

Then I question your ability to judge excellence in academic work.

You do not have to get personal.

Generally speaking, selectively cutting quotes to reverse their meaning

I don’t think this was done.

You may feel it refutes most of my arguments, and I can’t change how you feel, but I won’t refrain from pointing out the flaws in his work.

You are free to do so.

I’m simply explaining why I consider his work sloppy and unreliable.

You should probably stick to your arguments instead of denigrating someone’s work.

You can’t expect his work to be presented without any response from me.

Of course not. I think his work is most excellent. You are free to point out any flaws that you see and refute them by your own opinions and/or references. I happen to agree with most of what he says…and so I reference his work often.

There is no need to be immature and start attacking others’ work with your selective adjectives.

I think that there is a faction of Roman Catholics who think as you do…and then there is a faction who conclude that the Son originates the Spirit just as the Father does (such as Fr David Coffey propoeses in his paper).

 

[Ghosty]

“t should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father.* And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son***.”

In other words, the fact that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son does not mean that He takes His hypostatic origin from the Son.

St. John says this:

And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son

 

[Mickey]

It’s not an accusation, it’s a fact. He left out the rest of the quote in order to support an argument that doesn’t follow from the actual text.

We have seen the full quote here and Todd has posted it during past debates. Todd does not do damage to the text.

 

[Mickey]

He takes his origin from the Father, through the Son.

Correct. The Holy Spirit proceeds by origin from the Father. Not the Father and the Son.

You brought up your personal feelings as if they gave credence to Todd’s work.

You attacked me for referencing another work (which I admire and you do not) and then you attacked the work as sloppy and unreliable.

The flaws in his work are directly relevant to me defending my arguments.

Then present what you perceive as the flaws instead of denigrating me for admiring the work…and then denigrating the work because it stands in opposition to your opinions.

Showing the errors in the counter-argument is how this kind of discussion works.

Then that is what you should focus on instead of your opinion on the lack of neatness and reliability.

If you don’t want to see his work picked apart then don’t present his work as your argument.

I don’t mind if you pick it apart. You have been attempting that from the beginning.

His work certainly doesn’t stand up as an irrefutable answer in itself, and it is subject to criticism in its weaknesses.

That is for you to prove through scholarship and charity.

If you have nicer terms for “sloppy” and “unreliable” I’ll be happy to use them

How about…I disagree with his work…and this is why…

The point remains that Todd does not accurately present the Latin teaching and therefore his work can’t be relied on for any kind of scholarly discussion.

That is where we disagree.

As for Fr. David Coffey’s work, you’ll have to direct me to it as I haven’t read it.

I’ll try to dig it up for you.

 

[Mickey]

If there is a special circle of the inferno described by Dante reserved for
historians of theology, the principal homework assigned to that
subdivision of hell for at least the first several eons of eternity may well be
the thorough study of all the treatises–in Latin, Greek, Church Slavonic,
and various modern languages–devoted to the inquiry: Does the Holy
Spirit proceed from the Father only, as Eastern Christendom contends, or
from both the Father and the Son (ex Patre Filioque), as the Latin Church teaches?
Jaroslav Pelikan

 

[Vico]

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?

… 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. …

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). …

… 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. …

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.

Uncreated and eternal are different in meaning. Uncreated eternal, eternally created, temporally created. Plato said the world became. Aristotle taught the eternity of the world. The Church is with Plato on this, the world is not eternally created.

St. Basil states that “the energies are numerous and the essence of God simple and what we know when we say God is in fact His energies. We do not pressure to approach His essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.”

I give this organization, although imperfect, firstly that God exists in His essence and outside of His essence:

The Ocean

I. Uncreated
…A. Essence (Substance)
…B. Father Hypostasis
…C. Internal Processions (Father is the cause)
…1. begetting of the Son Hypostasis
…2. emanation into being of the Spirit Hypostasis
…D. uncreated grace or energies (not the term energy of Physics)

The Cup (Heaven and Earth) The Self-Revelation of God Himself

II. Created Processions (the uncreated graces present in the creatures)
…A. Hypostatic union with the incarnation Jesus Christ
…B. eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son (mission, through the Son)
…C. indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the faithful

I.C.2 and II.B are mentioned in this Orthodox statement from Synod of Blachernae, 1285:

" 5. … For there is no other hypostasis in the Trinity except the Father’s, from which the existence and essence of the consubstantial is derived. According to the common mind of the Church and the aforementioned saints, the Father is the foundation and the source of the Son and the Spirit, the only source of divinity, and the only cause. If, in fact, it is also said by some of the saints that the Spirit proceeds “through the Son,” what is meant here is the eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son, not the purely emanation into being of the Spirit, which has its existence from the Father. Otherwise, this would deprive the Father from being the only cause and the only source of divinity, and would expose the theologian who says “everything the Father is said to possess, the Son, likewise, possesses except causality” * as a dishonest theologian.

• Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 34, PG 36.252A; cf. also Mouzalon’s use and explanation of this proof-text, in PG 142.293A-B.]

 

[Marybeloved]

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!

Thank you, Ghosty!

That helps a lot. The energies are not God but his action- right? They are not part of his being from eternity. And what God does is done internally or externally, internally is what we call the Divine processions which never leave the Divine being, so are one with or part of his being, eternal and cannot be creation. External is in relation to what is outside the divine being- which is creation. So what God does in reference to creation is called Divine energy- right?

Is it proper to say that the action of God as regards us is created, since it did not exist eternally as we were not there for that action to happen- But the gift that this action confers in our soul- that is the gift of God himself- is eternal and uncreated. Does that make sense? That’s my understanding- How does it square with the Eastern thought?

Peace.

 

[Ghosty]

Thank you, Ghosty!

That helps a lot. The energies are not God but his action- right? They are not part of his being from eternity. And what God does is done internally or externally, internally is what we call the Divine processions which never leave the Divine being, so are one with or part of his being, eternal and cannot be creation. External is in relation to what is outside the divine being- which is creation. So what God does in reference to creation is called Divine energy- right?

The Energy is God because God is what He “does”, and the Divine Energy is eternal. God’s Holiness and Goodness, for example, are not things other than God Himself, and they are eternal. God is both His Essence and His Energy, and the two are distinct but not truly separate. Divine Energy doesn’t just refer to “actions”, but pretty much anything that might be considered an adjective or verb when referring to God. What’s more, the Divine Energy is utterly simple though we refer to it as several different energies because of our limited human frame of reference; we can speak of God’s Life and God’s Goodness as if they are distinct, but really they are one and the same Energy. God’s Essence, on the other hand, is more of the fundamental definition of God in Byzantine theology, and this is utterly unknown because it is infinite and surpasses our capacity to ever contemplate; to know the Divine Essence, in this understanding, would be to wholly contain God, to hold the whole of God within our own limited comprehension which is obviously absurd.

Bear in mind, and this is very important, that these terms are used differently in Eastern and Western theology. In Western theology we might say that we will see the Divine Essence in the Beatific Vision, but in Byzantine theology we would say that we can never see the Divine Essence. This isn’t a contradiction, but rather because the East and West are using the terms in a slightly different way. Also, in the West, what the Byzantine tradition calls Divine Energy is incorporated into the Divine Essence, and this is why the Latins will say we will see the Divine Essence, while the Byzantines will say we can only ever experience the Divine Energy. Latin theology would say that we can see the Divine Essence, but never comprehend the Divine Essence, while Byzantines would simply say we never see the Divine Essence but we do experience the Divine Energy.

Is it proper to say that the action of God as regards us is created, since it did not exist eternally as we were not there for that action to happen- But the gift that this action confers in our soul- that is the gift of God himself- is eternal and uncreated. Does that make sense? That’s my understanding- How does it square with the Eastern thought?

Peace.

The Byzantine tradition wouldn’t use the language this way, but you are absolutely correct about how the distinctions are made in Latin theology. For example, in Latin theology the term created Grace refers simply to the fact that the relationship with God has a beginning in time; it does not refer at all to the “substance” of Grace which is God’s own Divine Life shared with His creatures, and is obviously uncreated. In Byzantine theology the term created Grace is avoided because it was traditionally taken to refer to the “substance” of Grace, rather than the giving of that Grace, and obviously it would be heretical to say that God’s Life is something created.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Marybeloved]

The Energy is God because God is what He “does”, and the Divine Energy is eternal. God’s Holiness and Goodness, for example, are not things other than God Himself, and they are eternal. God is both His Essence and His Energy, and the two are distinct but not truly separate. Divine Energy doesn’t just refer to “actions”, but pretty much anything that might be considered an adjective or verb when referring to God. What’s more, the Divine Energy is utterly simple though we refer to it as several different energies because of our limited human frame of reference; we can speak of God’s Life and God’s Goodness as if they are distinct, but really they are one and the same Energy. God’s Essence, on the other hand, is more of the fundamental definition of God in Byzantine theology, and this is utterly unknown because it is infinite and surpasses our capacity to ever contemplate; to know the Divine Essence, in this understanding, would be to wholly contain God, to hold the whole of God within our own limited comprehension which is obviously absurd.

Bear in mind, and this is very important, that these terms are used differently in Eastern and Western theology. In Western theology we might say that we will see the Divine Essence in the Beatific Vision, but in Byzantine theology we would say that we can never see the Divine Essence. This isn’t a contradiction, but rather because the East and West are using the terms in a slightly different way. Also, in the West, what the Byzantine tradition calls Divine Energy is incorporated into the Divine Essence, and this is why the Latins will say we will see the Divine Essence, while the Byzantines will say we can only ever experience the Divine Energy. Latin theology would say that we can see the Divine Essence, but never comprehend the Divine Essence, while Byzantines would simply say we never see the Divine Essence but we do experience the Divine Energy.

Thanks again, Ghosty.

I think I finally got “it”. I’m beginning to understand just what the differences are and why the language is Greek to me (pun intended ). I see why the idea of God’s energies as expressed is hard for my Latin mind.

As I’ve been taught, God’s holiness, life, goodness, beauty etc is not something he does- it’s his what he is- his own substance. God’s existence is goodness itself, holiness itself, power itself etc- In the West, as I’ve been taught, they are not adjectives when it comes to God- they are exactly what God is, his being. So I see why my mind has been in a lock with this since cavaradossi, mickey, Vico and you. For me the essence of God is all these things- He’s not good- He’s goodness. So for me, what God does, if it’s external to his being/essence- I find it impossible to conceive as God himself.

To explain myself further, let me put in a Thomistic way that I grasped only lightly. God is absolute existence, or existence without limit. The rest of us (creatures) are existence limited in a particular way- so that we can know something of God from looking at creation. God gives you existence in a particular container of limits. The whatness of us, is existence limited in the particular way we are, so that the creature “human” is formed, or rock, tree, angel etc. The whatness of God is Absolute infinite existence, from the name he gave Moses- I am. For us, we can speak of the qualities as adjectives, the flower is beautiful, the elephant powerful, people good, because of the limits, but God is goodness itself, absolute and unlimited, power itself- But in him, they are not many divided qualities like with us, in him, it’s just one existence- the goodness, the beauty, the power, the life- is the one essence without distinction, pure essence. Not like us, who can be beautiful, and strong etc- and they be different qualities. The goodness of God is the exact same thing (substance) as his holiness, power, beauty, justice etc.-Only with us, where being/existence is given in a limited way, is this one thing (being) split into a thousand different qualities with us that are not identical/contained with one’s being. (So the fundamental definition of God (his essence) as you put it, to us is simply Absolute being without limit- And this essence is the same substance as the goodness, power, beauty of God without limit- they are not qualities of the essence, distinct from it, because fundamentally God is absolute being without limit.)

I’m now convinced that this is why it’s hard for me, as a Latin, to conceive of energies that are not the Divine essence and yet also God. For me the essence is not one thing and the “qualities” another. In God, there are no qualities. The unlimited being of God is all these things in essence, but they are numerically one thing which is absolute existence.

Thanks so much!

Peace.

 

[DadDave]

As far as “and” and “through” didn’t the council of Florence agree they we compatible?

 

[DadDave]

So back to St. John … What does he mean when he says the Spirit through the Son?
It seems to imply some sort of passivity by the Son and the Spirit.
What is the purpose of Father proceeding the essence of the Spirit through the Son if the Son is only a conduit for it and doesn’t contribute?

 

[stephraim]

St. Maximos the Confessor accepted the filioque, though he did want it reworded.