Filioque in plain english

[mardukm]

Here’s the fuller context of the quote on the three torches analogy (btw, my mistake, it was St. Gregory of Nyssa who made the analogy, not St. John Damascene). As you will see, the analogy refers to the common substance of the Godhead (the ousia). (St. Justin Martyr’s work - referenced earlier by brother Byzcathcantor - also uses the torch/flame analogy to explain the common substance. Others who use the analogy are Tatian in his Apology for Christianity and St. Gregory Nazianzen):

"If, then, the Holy Spirit is truly, and not in name only, called Divine both by Scripture and by our Fathers, what ground is left for those who oppose the glory of the Spirit? He is Divine, and absolutely good, and Omnipotent, and wise, and glorious, and eternal; He is everything of this kind that can be named to raise our thoughts to the grandeur of His being. The singleness of the subject of these properties testifies that He does not possess them in a measure only, as if we could imagine that He was one thing in His very substance, but became another by the presence of the aforesaid qualities. That condition is peculiar to those beings who have been given a composite nature; whereas the Holy Spirit is single and simple in every respect equally. This is allowed by all; the man who denies it does not exist. If, then, there is but one simple and single definition of His being, the good which He possesses is not an acquired good; but, whatever He may be besides, He is Himself Goodness, and Wisdom, and Power, and Sanctification, and Righteousness, and Everlastingness, and Imperishability, and every name that is lofty, and elevating above other names. What, then, is the state of mind that leads these men, who do not fear the fearful sentence passed upon the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, to maintain that such a Being does not possess glory? For they clearly put that statement forward; that we ought not to believe that He should be glorified: though I know not for what reason they judge it to be expedient not to confess the true nature of that which is essentially glorious.

For the plea will not avail them in their self-defence, that He is delivered by our Lord to His disciples third in order, and that therefore He is estranged from our ideal of Deity. Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution or essential variation! It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son? Certainly, if there is in our conceptions of the Substance of the Spirit anything that falls short of the Divine ideal, they do well in testifying to His not possessing glory; but if the highness of His dignity is to be perceived in every point, why do they grudge to make the confession of His glory?

By the way, brother Cavaradossi, I included in the full quote the testimony of St. Gregory of Nyssa to the simplicity of God in Himself. Energy and Essence can be distinguished as far as God’s relation to creation, but not in Himself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

I would add that the Spirit proceeds from the Father conjointly and together with the begetting of the Son and the Son is begotten by the Father conjointly and together with the procession of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit rests upon the Son who manifests Him.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Actually, I believe you are incorrect. Hyparxeos on its own does not refer to “existence as an hypostasis.” The phrase utilized by the early Fathers (and presumably the later Eastern Fathers) to refer to “existence as an hypostasis” is tropos hyparxeos (other sources have it alternatively as tropos tes hyparxeos or tropai hyparxeos).

Tropos is Greek for “manner or way.” The WHOLE PHRASE refers to the manner of existing as God or, in your words, “existence as an hypostasis.” Thus, the Father exists as the ungenerated (that is His manner of existing as God), the Son as the generated (that is His manner of existing as God), and the Spirit as the one who proceeds from both - or originates from the Father through the Son (that is His manner of existing as God).

But Florence did not use the phrase tropos hyparxeos – It simply used hyparxeos. On its own, the term indeed refers to that which is possessed, and is a reference to the common divinity (i.e., the ousia).

Hence, as already explained, Florence was simply saying that the Son is Cause (NOT THE SOURCE) of the ousia (NOT THE HYPOSTASIS) of the Spirit, which is what the early Fathers unanimously teach.

The problem is that hyparxeos and ousia are not equivalent. Hyparxeos refers to the existence of a thing in particular, while ousia describes a general class of things (this is how St. Basil defined ousia). It is obviously more closely aligned with the hypostasis, which is why the phrase tropos hyparxeos (manner of existence) which you mention is used by the fathers to refer to manner of origin of the particular hypostases within the trinity. Also, earlier in the definition, they already confessed that the Son is the cause of the essence of the Holy Spirit, so it seems unlikely that they understood hyparxeos to mean essence.

In making the statement that the Son is cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit, they are indeed confessing that the Spirit’s personal existence (that is, hypostasis) is caused in some manner from the Son, which violates the monarchy of the Father.

Btw, you have not responded to a lot of what I have written. Does the silence mean (1) you agree, (2) you are still thinking about it, or (3) you disagree but don’t have an answer.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m not sure what I have not answered that you would like answered. By the way, I would still like to see some quotations of the Eastern fathers teaching that the ousia of the Holy Spirit is from the Son.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here’s the fuller context of the quote on the three torches analogy (btw, my mistake, it was St. Gregory of Nyssa who made the analogy, not St. John Damascene). As you will see, the analogy refers to the common substance of the Godhead (the ousia). (St. Justin Martyr’s work - referenced earlier by brother Byzcathcantor - also uses the torch/flame analogy to explain the common substance. Others who use the analogy are Tatian in his Apology for Christianity and St. Gregory Nazianzen):

"If, then, the Holy Spirit is truly, and not in name only, called Divine both by Scripture and by our Fathers, what ground is left for those who oppose the glory of the Spirit? He is Divine, and absolutely good, and Omnipotent, and wise, and glorious, and eternal; He is everything of this kind that can be named to raise our thoughts to the grandeur of His being. The singleness of the subject of these properties testifies that He does not possess them in a measure only, as if we could imagine that He was one thing in His very substance, but became another by the presence of the aforesaid qualities. That condition is peculiar to those beings who have been given a composite nature; whereas the Holy Spirit is single and simple in every respect equally. This is allowed by all; the man who denies it does not exist. If, then, there is but one simple and single definition of His being, the good which He possesses is not an acquired good; but, whatever He may be besides, He is Himself Goodness, and Wisdom, and Power, and Sanctification, and Righteousness, and Everlastingness, and Imperishability, and every name that is lofty, and elevating above other names. What, then, is the state of mind that leads these men, who do not fear the fearful sentence passed upon the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, to maintain that such a Being does not possess glory? For they clearly put that statement forward; that we ought not to believe that He should be glorified: though I know not for what reason they judge it to be expedient not to confess the true nature of that which is essentially glorious.

What Gregory of Nyssa means is that the Holy Spirit is Good, Sanctification, etc. by nature, as opposed to created beings, which participate in Good, Sanctification, etc. by grace. The problem is that you have taken this quotation about essence and taken it out of the context of the greater corpus of patristic works. Reading anything by pseudo-Dionysus should show us that God’s true nature is beyond knowing, that God is so transcendent that He even transcends the concept of essence. It is this understanding that God’s being goes beyond his essence and includes other things like his energies, will, etc. that you have to interpret this passage with.

You would not say that energies like goodness, holiness, or immortality are part of your being by nature, but that you participate in them by grace. You would say that the Holy Spirit is by nature these things, but you also have to understand that things like sanctification or life are not the essence of the Holy Spirit, they are energies, which the Holy Spirit bestows upon us. To say otherwise would be to say that the Holy Spirit fills things with the divine essence when it sanctifies them, or sustains life with by permeating them with the divine essence, both of which would be blasphemous. This is why the distinction between essence and energy is a real distinction, not some sort of illusion. If it were not real, then we either have to confess that God is not immanent or confess that He is not transcendent.

As for the torches, they express the manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son, not the derivation of the Holy Spirit’s personal existence or divinity through the Son.

 

[Cavaradossi]

At any rate, I think we are venturing away from plain English. This is probably not helping to answer the OP’s question.

 

[GrkCath86]

I like the torch analogy…

So if I was to draw it out it would it look like this?

Latin: F --(HS)–>S---->HS

                    ----->S

Greek: F<
----->HS

Is this basically it??
Or am I missing something??

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I like the torch analogy…

You are indeed an Eastern Christian!

 

[sakares2]

I do not understand, If it is patristic to say:

1. that the ousia proceeds through the son, (ousia is the Nature of the Spirit from what i gather),

2.and that the Spirit has both Nature and person that make up His existence

why is it incorrect to say that the existence (hyparxeos) of the Spirit comes through the son if one of the things necessary for its existance is ousia which comes through the son?

it seems that if ousia is part of the exisistence if the Holy Spirit and the Spirit get this (ousia) through the Son, then one could very easily state that in this manner the holy spirit has His existence (hyparxeos) through the son.

perhaps I have misinterpreted the greek words, but Am I wrong on this?

I would love to hear both cavaradossi and mardukms thoughts on this.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

The problem is that hyparxeos and ousia are not equivalent.

Who said they are equivalent. Your argument is a fallacy called “proving too much.” I never claimed hyparxeos is equivalent to ousia. Hyparxeos means something that is possessed, which refers to the ousia, because we know the Latins have always referred to the ousia in relation to filioque, not the hypostasis.

Hyparxeos refers to the existence of a thing in particular,

No it doesn’t. Hyparxeos means something which is possessed. Tropos hyparxeos means the particular existence of a thing. Florence did not utilize the term tropos hyparxeos, but rather only hyparxeos. The combined term tropos hyparxeos can be equivalent to hypostasis, but hyparxeos on its own is not. I mentioned this earlier, and you haven’t responded to that btw. That’s one of the several things you have not properly responded to (since you asked).

while ousia describes a general class of things (this is how St. Basil defined ousia).

It is obviously more closely aligned with the hypostasis, which is why the phrase tropos hyparxeos (manner of existence) which you mention is used by the fathers to refer to manner of origin of the particular hypostases within the trinity.

Also, earlier in the definition, they already confessed that the Son is the cause of the essence of the Holy Spirit, so it seems unlikely that they understood hyparxeos to mean essence.

I’m not sure what you mean. EVERYTHING the Spirit possesses (every divine property including divinity) is from the Father through the Son.

In making the statement that the Son is cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit, they are indeed confessing that the Spirit’s personal existence (that is, hypostasis) is caused in some manner from the Son, which violates the monarchy of the Father.

How so, if everything that the Spirit possesses has its SOURCE from the Father anyway? Explain your logic. Both are causes (as one principle) relative to the Spirit, but only the Father is SOURCE relative to both. You are engaging in uniatism by imposing no differentiation between “cause” and “source” to judge the Latin theology, while the Latins do make such a differentiation. I’ve explained this before, and it is yet another one of the several points you have never responded to. You just keep repeating the standard polemic “Latins say he is the cause…” but you have never been able to respond to the fact that Latins distinguish between “cause” and “source.”

I’m not sure what I have not answered that you would like answered. By the way, I would still like to see some quotations of the Eastern fathers teaching that the ousia of the Holy Spirit is from the Son.

It is not from the Son alone. That is the error of your thinking about the Latin theology on filioque. It is NEVER from the Son ALONE, because the Son is NOT the Source of the ousia. It is either proienia/procedit from the Father and the Son, or ekporeusai from the Father through the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I do not understand, If it is patristic to say:

1. that the ousia proceeds through the son, (ousia is the Nature of the Spirit from what i gather),

2.and that the Spirit has both Nature and person that make up His existence

why is it incorrect to say that the existence (hyparxeos) of the Spirit comes through the son if one of the things necessary for its existance is ousia which comes through the son?

it seems that if ousia is part of the exisistence if the Holy Spirit and the Spirit get this (ousia) through the Son, then one could very easily state that in this manner the holy spirit has His existence (hyparxeos) through the son.

perhaps I have misinterpreted the greek words, but Am I wrong on this?

I would love to hear both cavaradossi and mardukms thoughts on this.

Yes, that is my understanding of the matter. While the ousia is an integral element of the hypostasis, hypostasis and ousia are two distinct things.

While the Son is intimately involved in communicating the divine Essence/Substance/Nature (ousia) to the Holy Spirit, He is not the Source of the ousia, and neither of the hypostasis. That property of being Source belongs to the Father alone. That is what filioque teaches. EO are simply engaging in uniatism when they refuse to acknowledge that Latins distinguish between the terms “source” (principle without principle) and “cause.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Who said they are equivalent. Your argument is a fallacy called “proving too much.” I never claimed hyparxeos is equivalent to ousia. Hyparxeos means something that is possessed, which refers to the ousia, because we know the Latins have always referred to the ousia in relation to filioque, not the hypostasis.

No it doesn’t. Hyparxeos means something which is possessed. Tropos hyparxeos means the particular existence of a thing. Florence did not utilize the term tropos hyparxeos, but rather only hyparxeos. The combined term tropos hyparxeos can be equivalent to hypostasis, but hyparxeos on its own is not. I mentioned this earlier, and you haven’t responded to that btw. That’s one of the several things you have not properly responded to (since you asked).

No, you are wrong. perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*u%3Aentry+group%3D17%3Aentry%3Du%28%2Fparcis Hyparxis (and its genetive, Hyparxeos) refers to existence and reality in philosophical language.

I’m not sure what you mean. EVERYTHING the Spirit possesses (every divine property including divinity) is from the Father through the Son.

That is unacceptable. The Holy Spirit can only have His existence from the Father.

How so, if everything that the Spirit possesses has its SOURCE from the Father anyway? Explain your logic. Both are causes (as one principle) relative to the Spirit, but only the Father is SOURCE relative to both. You are engaging in uniatism by imposing no differentiation between “cause” and “source” to judge the Latin theology, while the Latins do make such a differentiation. I’ve explained this before, and it is yet another one of the several points you have never responded to. You just keep repeating the standard polemic “Latins say he is the cause…” but you have never been able to respond to the fact that Latins distinguish between “cause” and “source.”

Did you even read the definition? The definition says:

that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause αἰτίαν], and according to the Latins as principle άρχήν] of the subsistence ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.

They say it right there. The Son should be called in Greek αἰτίαν. They do not specify that by αἰτίαν they do not mean source. Of course, it doesn’t matter, because saying that the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit is an error regardless. Causality is a property which can only be ascribed to the Father.

It is not from the Son alone. That is the error of your thinking about the Latin theology on filioque. It is NEVER from the Son ALONE, because the Son is NOT the Source of the ousia. It is either proienia/procedit from the Father and the Son, or ekporeusai from the Father through the Son.

Nor did I ever imply that it was from the Son alone (just as the original formulation of the Creed apparently doesn’t suggest to you that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone). All I want to see is some Fathers teaching that the ousia of Spirit comes from the Son (and the Father).

 

[sakares2]

It seems as though even if Hyparxeos refers to existence that there is nothing wrong with it So long as it is stated that it is through the Son. because in some way The Spirit has some of his properties through the son that integral to his existence. I do not see where the issue is. But doesn’t the Council of florence state ekporeusai from the Father and the Son?

 

[Cavaradossi]

It seems as though even if Hyparxeos refers to existence that there is nothing wrong with it So long as it is stated that it is through the Son. because in some way The Spirit has some of his properties through the son that integral to his existence. I do not see where the issue is. But doesn’t the Council of florence state ekporeusai from the Father and the Son?

Well, I’m still waiting for Marduk to show some Fathers teaching that the ousia of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle in one spiration. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a thing taught within Orthodoxy. The first problem definitely would seem to be that the Orthodox do not believe in such a thing.

 

[sakares2]

There are Fathers that mention that The Spirit eternally proceeds (both procedit and ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son. However I believe that there is debate on this as to whether or not they meant an eternal procession in time, or in the mission of sending the Holy Spirit. I have read Orthodox theologians that go both ways. (Personally I see it as eternal) It would seem as though if the Spirit is interpreted to proceed through the Son (either procedit or ekpoeusai) in an eternal way, then the Spirit must have some sort of property that pertains to The Spirits existence that comes through the Son. In which case as mentioned there would be some way to make the statement that the Holy Spirit has His existence through the son, as something pertaining to His existence that He needed in order to be the Holy Spirit came through the Son.

in regards to ousia, I too look forward to hearing from Mardukm, but i believe that if the Father mention of proceeding through the Son is interpreted in the Eternal way then to what other property could it refer? I think that both Catholic and Orthodox reject the idea that the Person of the Spirit comes Through the son. If they were referring to energies it was my understanding that Energies transmitted the Nature.

I don’t think that I am off on this…

 

[mardukm]

No, you are wrong. perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*u%3Aentry+group%3D17%3Aentry%3Du%28%2Fparcis Hyparxis (and its genetive, Hyparxeos) refers to existence and reality in philosophical language.

Sorry, your reference is outdated. The idea that as a term hyparxeos *on its own * refers to “existence” is a MODERN philosophical definition - a sort of convenient modern terminological short hand for tropos hyparxeos. Tropos hyparxeos as a compound term IS the patristic term utilized by the Fathers that is equivalent to hypostasis (individual existence), never hyparxeos alone. I gave you the primary definition of hyparxeos on its own, which is the most current definition according to more recent scholarly study. Note that your source is from 1940. The ancient Greek dictionary from which I gave you my definition is from the 1990’s. Knowlege evolves, my friend.

Further, do you see the mental gymnastics you impose on the definition? You mentioned it in your previous post. You re-interpret “existence” to mean “origin.” And that is where your rhetoric fails.

That is unacceptable. The Holy Spirit can only have His existence from the Father.

The concern of all your Eastern forbears was one thing - to ensure the doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father by asserting that he is the one SOURCE (Origin) of the Trinity, and this includes Blacharnae and Palamas. This, the Latins acknowledge and have always acknowledged. The problem is that MODERN EO apologetics and polemics have developed beyond the original intentions of your forbears. It is no longer about the principle of ORIGIN, but you don’t want the Son to have any connection with the Holy Spirit’s existence whatsoever. That is why you cannot answer the difficult questions that I have proposed to you in the past regarding the MODERN EO tendency to make an ontological distinction between Essence and Energy WITHIN the Godhead. Your forbears never delved into the Mystery of the Godhead so dramatically. But in overreaction to the Latin theology on filioque, it is a certain segment of MODERN EO’xy that hypocritically does the very thing that they accuse Latins of - seeking to define the internal workings of God which cannot be defined.

Did you even read the definition? The definition says:

They say it right there. The Son should be called in Greek αἰτίαν. They do not specify that by αἰτίαν they do not mean source. Of course, it doesn’t matter, because saying that the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit is an error regardless. Causality is a property which can only be ascribed to the Father.

Did you ever read the ENTIRE paragraph to which you are referring wherein the Decree states that the Father is the SOURCE (principle without principle) of both Son and Holy Spirit, using a specifically diffferent terminology than aitian? You really need to go beyond the party polemics - go beyond the little snippets that your non-Catholic sources give you - and be more contextual in your assessment of Latin Catholic theology. I hope you are willing to do that.

Nor did I ever imply that it was from the Son alone (just as the original formulation of the Creed apparently doesn’t suggest to you that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone). All I want to see is some Fathers teaching that the ousia of Spirit comes from the Son (and the Father).

Yes, I gave a catena of quotes in the past here in CAF which teach unanimously that the ousia of the Spirit is communicated through the Son from the Father. I will look for it when I have time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

That is unacceptable. The Holy Spirit can only have His existence from the Father.

So in your theology, the ousia is not an intergral element of the Holy Spirit’s existence.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

As for the torches, they express the manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son, not the derivation of the Holy Spirit’s personal existence or divinity through the Son.

I guess you missed the last portion:

But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son? Certainly, if there is in our conceptions of the Substance of the Spirit anything that falls short of the Divine ideal, they do well in testifying to His not possessing glory; but if the highness of His dignity is to be perceived in every point, why do they grudge to make the confession of His glory?

St. Gregory is referring to the passing on of the ousia (Substance) from the Father to the Holy Spirit via the Son. The words are right there for you to see. There are numerous statements by the Fathers like this, but everytime it has been presented to the EO, they claim it refers to “the manifestation, not the ousia.” Just read and understand what’s in front of your eyes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sakares2]

Mardukm, have I understood correctly, did the council of Florence use ekpouesai from the father and the Son?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sorry, your reference is outdated. The idea that as a term hyparxeos *on its own * refers to “existence” is a MODERN philosophical definition - a sort of convenient modern terminological short hand for tropos hyparxeos. Tropos hyparxeos as a compound term IS the patristic term utilized by the Fathers that is equivalent to hypostasis (individual existence), never hyparxeos alone. I gave you the primary definition of hyparxeos on its own, which is the most current definition according to more recent scholarly study. Note that your source is from 1940. The ancient Greek dictionary from which I gave you my definition is from the 1990’s. Knowlege evolves, my friend.

Just because your dictionary is 50 years newer does not mean that it is better. Hyparxis, by the way is related to the verb hyparcho, a verb which either denotes being existent or beginning. Not only this, but if we take your favorite phrase, tropos hyparxeos (mode of existence), we see literally that tropos means “manner” and that hyparxeos, the genitive of hyparxis must therefore mean ‘of existence’. Hyparxis means existence, and I am afraid that you are simply wrong on this point, Marduk.

Further, do you see the mental gymnastics you impose on the definition? You mentioned it in your previous post. You re-interpret “existence” to mean “origin.” And that is where your rhetoric fails.

Nowhere did I reinterpret hyparxis to mean origin. I said that the council of Florence states that the the Son is the cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit, which is unacceptable in the Eastern framework of the Trinity.

The concern of all your Eastern forbears was one thing - to ensure the doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father by asserting that he is the one SOURCE (Origin) of the Trinity, and this includes Blacharnae and Palamas. This, the Latins acknowledge and have always acknowledged. The problem is that MODERN EO apologetics and polemics have developed beyond the original intentions of your forbears. It is no longer about the principle of ORIGIN, but you don’t want the Son to have any connection with the Holy Spirit’s existence whatsoever. That is why you cannot answer the difficult questions that I have proposed to you in the past regarding the MODERN EO tendency to make an ontological distinction between Essence and Energy WITHIN the Godhead. Your forbears never delved into the Mystery of the Godhead so dramatically. But in overreaction to the Latin theology on filioque, it is a certain segment of MODERN EO’xy that hypocritically does the very thing that they accuse Latins of - seeking to define the internal workings of God which cannot be defined.

Can you stick with debating the points I set out, instead of debating with imaginary Eastern Orthodox polemicists?

Did you ever read the ENTIRE paragraph to which you are referring wherein the Decree states that the Father is the SOURCE (principle without principle) of both Son and Holy Spirit, using a specifically diffferent terminology than aitian? You really need to go beyond the party polemics - go beyond the little snippets that your non-Catholic sources give you - and be more contextual in your assessment of Latin Catholic theology. I hope you are willing to do that.

In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence οὐσίαν] and His subsistent being ύπαρχτιχόν είναι] from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds ἐκπορεύεται] from both eternally as from one principle μίᾶς άρχής] and a single spiration. We declare that when Holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ἐκπορεύεσθαι] from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause αἰτίαν], and according to the Latins as principle άρχήν] of the subsistence ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.

Where? I don’t see it. Perhaps you can provide the quotation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

So in your theology, the ousia is not an intergral element of the Holy Spirit’s existence.

Blessings,
Marduk

So you think the Spirit is composite, made up of elements? The Holy Spirit therefore gets essence here, personal existence there, etc., as if He were made up of Legos?