Filioque in plain english

[Cavaradossi]

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

No, he is not. His analogy with the torches is referring to what is know as the taxis or ordering of the members of the Trinity. This is referring to how God as Trinity is revealed to man. The Holy Spirit, which sanctifies and interacts with mankind is made manifest through the Son and from the Father. This nobody contests. This manifestation, however, is not the Holy Spirit receiving divinity or personal existence. Gregory’s argument is thus: just because the Holy Spirit is ordered third in order of manifestation does not mean that he is subordinate in essence. The analogy is actually better understood with a hermeneutic informed by the essence energies distinction than a hermeneutic which is not.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

It does indeed. See the definition from the council I have posted above.

 

[mardukm]

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?

Is that what the Fathers meant when they distinguished between ousia, energeia and hypostasis? That is your argument, not mine. You are the one insisting on a distinction of Essence and Energy within the Godhead, after all.

All we know is that the Fathers teach that the hypostasis is distinct from the ousia. The Latins admit this distinction, when they teach that the Son participates in the communication of the ousia to the Spirit (as cause though not as Source). How that is, no one knows, but at least the Latins are being patristic.

So the Latins maintain the only distinction that our common Fathers admit exists in the Godhead (distinction of Persons and, its natural corollary, between ousia and hypostasis), whereas certain modern EO (in what I believe is an overreaction to the Latin filioque) have
(1) introduced an utterly novel distinction within the Godhead (of Essence/Energy) which our common Fathers never taught, and
(2) fail to acknowledge the real distinction between ousia and hypostasis within the Godhead which our common Fathers unanimously taught (recall that in one of your past arguments, you found it incredulous how the Latins could maintain that the Son can be cause [though not Source] of ousia, but not hypostasis).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Is that what the Fathers meant when they distinguished between ousia, energeia and hypostasis? That is your argument, not mine. You are the one insisting on a distinction of Essence and Energy within the Godhead, after all.

All we know is that the Fathers teach that the hypostasis is distinct from the ousia. The Latins admit this distinction, when they teach that the Son participates in the communication of the ousia to the Spirit (as cause though not as Source). How that is, no one knows, but at least the Latins are being patristic.

So the Latins maintain the only distinction that our common Fathers admit exists in the Godhead (distinction of Persons and, its natural corollary, between ousia and hypostasis), whereas certain modern EO (in what I believe is an overreaction to the Latin filioque) have
(1) introduced an utterly novel distinction within the Godhead (of Essence/Energy) which our common Fathers never taught, and
(2) fail to acknowledge the real distinction between ousia and hypostasis within the Godhead which our common Fathers unanimously taught (recall that in one of your past arguments, you found it incredulous how the Latins could maintain that the Son can be cause [though not Source] of ousia, but not hypostasis).

Blessings,
Marduk

Quit changing the subject. Do you believe the Holy Spirit to be a composite being or not? If not, then why do you believe that the Holy Spirit can receive essence from one place and personal existence from another?

 

[mardukm]

Just because your dictionary is 50 years newer does not mean that it is better.

Yes, it does. I guess you have not read up on the philosophical debates regarding the meaning of the term beginning with Karl Barth.

Hyparxis, by the way is related to the verb hyparcho, a verb which either denotes being existent or beginning.

Verbs can can take on different connotations in noun forms in many languages. So what’s your point?

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

Of course, if you take EVERYTHING that you possess, that can CONNOTE your very being. But it is by way of connotation, not denotation. Modern exegesis of ancient Greek regards the PRIMARY denotation of hyparxeos as that which one possesses.

and I am afraid that you are simply wrong on this point, Marduk.

Or perhaps you have not read as much on the matter.

Nowhere did I reinterpret hyparxis to mean origin.

“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” The words “manner of origin” were your words, not mine. Try seeing if I ever used those words. You’ll find it came from your mind, not mine.

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.

He is a cause (NOT the Source) of everything which the Holy Spirit possesses (including divinity), because all the Father has is the Son’s, and the Spirit receives all from the Son, as the Scriptures and the Fathers unanimously teach. The Spirit’s hypostasis originates from the Father, but the Spirit receives the ousia from the Son. I am not sure modern EO’xy (or at least a certain very popular segment of it) represents the patristic Eastern framework if it denies this basic teaching of the Fathers.

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

Why don’t you respond to the point of the excerpt - that the Eastern Fathers were concerned about the ORIGIN of hypostasis. But, as you have demonstrated, many modern EO confuse “origin” with “existence,” and not only claim that the Son cannot have a role in the origin of the Holy Spirit, but cannot have a role in His existence as well. It appears your modern position even contradicts the Traditional doctrine of perichoresis (which Florence, btw, explicitly taught ).

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

Oh, I guess that proves you’ve never read the entire Decree. I’ll let you do your own homework.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sakares2]

I Think that I would have to agree, that the Holy Spirit is not a composite. However if this is the case, and the Fathers are to be interpreted as speaking of the eternal procession of the Spirit through the Son, then it can be reasonably stated that everything that the Spirit has, Nature, Person, energies, existence Come through the son. But that the son is not the Source, Instead the Spirit like a Reservoir Flows (Proceeds) through a River (The Son) from a spring (The Father) .

if we say that on one thing proceeds through the Son and other things not, then we are doomed to composites.

However if this is true then it must be stated that no Father spoke of an eternal procession of the Spirit in anyway, I dont think anyone is of this opinion. If we state that they meant manifestations (to make known from what I gather) then we say that the Spirit is eternally made known through the Son. If this is true however, how do we reconcile this with statement that say that everything the Spirit has is through the Son?

I would like to hear your comments Mardukm on the use of ekporuesai at florence, If possible. As I always understood it this term was to be avoided like the plague in its attachement to the Phrase “and the son” as opposed to “through the Son.” My question then what did florence mean? If I recall it was also recorded somewhere that the Greeks at lyon (?) sang the Filioque 3 times, was this with ekporuesai also?

 

[mardukm]

No, he is not. His analogy with the torches is referring to what is know as the taxis or ordering of the members of the Trinity.

No its not. He is explaining how the Essence is communicated and is equal in all, with no diminution.

This is referring to how God as Trinity is revealed to man.

Nice try, but nowhere does he refer to “how God as Trinity is revealed to man.” You are imposing a meaning on a discussion on the ontological substance of the Godhead that is not there.

The Holy Spirit, which sanctifies and interacts with mankind is made manifest through the Son and from the Father. This nobody contests. This manifestation, however, is not the Holy Spirit receiving divinity or personal existence.

True, but that is not what St. Gregory is talking about. He is speaking simply about the transmission of the Essence from one to another with no diminution.

Gregory’s argument is thus: just because the Holy Spirit is ordered third in order of manifestation does not mean that he is subordinate in essence.

And there’s where your interpretation fails, because you utterly fail to take into account his several statements on the flame and the properties of the flame. If the three torches are referring to the ordering, the commonality of the flame and the properties of the flame refers to something else, and it is that commonality in something else that is the whole point of his argument. That commonality is the Essence/Substance, as he very plainly states.

The analogy is actually better understood with a hermeneutic informed by the essence energies distinction than a hermeneutic which is not.

My hermeneutic is properly informed by the Essence/Energy distinction, except that I don’t dare to presume that the Essence/Energy distinction exists WITHIN the Godhead as you do.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Quit changing the subject.

I’m not. Nothing I’ve said could cause you to ask that question, if you have a proper Trinitarian understanding.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit to be a composite being or not?

He is not composite, but simple in Himself.

If not, then why do you believe that the Holy Spirit can receive essence from one place and personal existence from another?

Your question betrays what seems to be a rather unorthodox understanding of the Trinity. Why do you use the terms “one place…from another” as if there was any notion of such things in Eternity? All we know is what the Fathers teach:
(1) There is a distinction between hypostasis and ousia.
(2) The Father is the Source of the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit.
(3) All that the Father has, the Son has also, except to be the Father (or Source)
(4) The Spirit receives his Essence from the Father through the Son.

The Traditional Latin (including filioque) and Greek teaching on the Trinity is faithful to these teachings from the Fathers. Your above question (and other anti-filioque EO rhetoric) is not - it is an attempt to delve into the Mystery of the Godhead that is wholly improper.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I Think that I would have to agree, that the Holy Spirit is not a composite. However if this is the case, and the Fathers are to be interpreted as speaking of the eternal procession of the Spirit through the Son, then it can be reasonably stated that everything that the Spirit has, Nature, Person, energies, existence Come through the son. But that the son is not the Source, Instead the Spirit like a Reservoir Flows (Proceeds) through a River (The Son) from a spring (The Father) .

if we say that on one thing proceeds through the Son and other things not, then we are doomed to composites.

However if this is true then it must be stated that no Father spoke of an eternal procession of the Spirit in anyway, I dont think anyone is of this opinion. If we state that they meant manifestations (to make known from what I gather) then we say that the Spirit is eternally made known through the Son. If this is true however, how do we reconcile this with statement that say that everything the Spirit has is through the Son?

I would like to hear your comments Mardukm on the use of ekporuesai at florence, If possible. As I always understood it this term was to be avoided like the plague in its attachement to the Phrase “and the son” as opposed to “through the Son.” My question then what did florence mean? If I recall it was also recorded somewhere that the Greeks at lyon (?) sang the Filioque 3 times, was this with ekporuesai also?

Sorry I missed your question earlier.

I actually think they did use the term ekporeusai. But I think it was with the then-common MISunderstanding that ekporeusai was perfectly equivalent to procedit. This is plainly evident when the Decree states that “and” and “through” are to be understood equivalently. If one understands the proper distinction between ekporeusai and procedit, it is impossible to think that using “and” with ekporeusai could be doctrinally justified. I think there were still a lot of underlying misunderstandings, especially linguistically. This applies not only to the distinction between ekporeusai and procedit, but also the distinction between cause and source. I would also add that in both Greek and Latin terms for “substance” and “person” can philosphically be confused according to connotation. For this reason, I’ve always maintained that while I believe Florence was a proper Ecumenical Council so-called, I nevertheless think that its theological language was IMproperly weighted in favor of the Latins. So I think CERTAIN misgivings that Easterns have against Florence are justified.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sakares2]

I think That I would have to agree with that Mardukm, because if I recall that very same council and ones before it all state “from one spiration.” It would seem unlikely to state from one spiration then mention 2 sources of spiration., this combined with the fact that I have never found any patristic eveidence that states that the Spirit proceeds from the son as a source, So it would seem unlikely that that is what they meant. I am curious though, because I have heard that ekporuesia implies from one single source, but does it necessitate from one single source?

I also do not fully understand when you state “i actually believe that they used ekporuesia” Was the council in Latin or Greek or Both? is the matter up for grabs whether they did or did not?

 

[mardukm]

I think That I would have to agree with that Mardukm, because if I recall that very same council and ones before it all state “from one spiration.” It would seem unlikely to state from one spiration then mention 2 sources of spiration., this combined with the fact that I have never found any patristic eveidence that states that the Spirit proceeds from the son as a source, So it would seem unlikely that that is what they meant. I am curious though, because I have heard that ekporuesia implies from one single source, but does it necessitate from one single source?

I also do not fully understand when you state “i actually believe that they used ekporuesia” Was the council in Latin or Greek or Both? is the matter up for grabs whether they did or did not?

Well, it was written in Latin for the Latins and then translated to Greek. So the Latins used procedit, but when the canonists translated it for the Greeks, guess what word they used - ekporeusai.

You can’t really blame them, because they were trying to remain faithful to the language of their respective Creeds. In fact, procedit is more equivalent to the Greek proienai, but, as noted, they were trying to remain faithful to the language of their respective Creeds.

I have not compared the Latin and Greek where the terms “source” and “cause” are used. I know that in Latin, they are two different terms (the term translated as “source” is only used for the Father, while the different term translated as “cause” is used for both Father and Son). I am wondering if when it was translated to Greek, the term aitia was (very unfortunately) used for both. It’s highly probable, because from Mark of Ephesus’ writings, he does not recognize the distinction. That would explain a lot.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Well, it was written in Latin for the Latins and then translated to Greek. So the Latins used procedit

, but when the canonists translated it for the Greeks, guess what word they used - ekporeusai.

You can’t really blame them, because they were trying to remain faithful to the language of their respective Creeds. In fact,

procedit is more equivalent to the Greek proienai, but, as noted, they were trying to remain faithful to the language of their respective Creeds.

I have not compared the Latin and Greek where the terms “source” and “cause” are used. I know that in Latin, they are two different terms (the term translated as “source” is only used for the Father, while the different term translated as “cause” is used for both Father and Son). I am wondering if when it was translated to Greek, the term aitia was (very unfortunately) used for both. It’s highly probable, because from Mark of Ephesus’ writings, he does not recognize the distinction. That would explain a lot.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think the word distinctions are as shown below.

The distinction between ekporevsis (εκπορεύεσθαι) and proienai (προείναι) was not made in Latin theology, which used the term procedit to denote both realities (ontology and economy). Procedit used in filioque means two things:

Ontology: Procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son
Economy: Mission of the Spirit from the Father and the Son

Ontology: ekporevsis (εκπορεύεσθαι).
Economy: proienai (προείναι)

And the primordial source of His divine person (hypostasis, υπόστασις) is the Father alone, because the Father alone is the source (πηγή) and cause (αἰτία) of divinity.

The economy has a scriptural basis but the internal procession does not, rather the basis is conciliar (consubstantial, 325 A.D.).

 

[sakares2]

That I did not know. That the Council was done in latin, and then translated into Greek. Then the originals are latin and the greek is only a translation of the latin originals?

Also what I had meant by my prior question was, are you aware if the word ekporuesia only implies a single orgin or necessitates it.

 

[Apotheoun]

Well, it was written in Latin for the Latins and then translated to Greek. So the Latins used procedit, but when the canonists translated it for the Greeks, guess what word they used - ekporeusai.

That is not correct. The Greek texts of the Florentine decrees - unlike the Armenian and Arabic texts - were issued by the council itself, and so they are equally authoritative with the Latin texts, and this fact can be easily ascertained by reading what Norman P. Tanner (S.J.) said about his English translation of the conciliar texts on page 454 of volume one of his book on the decrees of the ecumenical councils:

“As regards the English translation, the following points should be noted where the original text is given in two languages, namely Latin and another. Where a Greek text is given (pp. 520-528), this is of equal authority with the parallel Latin version, and in the English translation the few significant discrepancies between the two texts have been noted. In the cases of Armenian and Arabic texts (pp. 534-559 and 567-583), these were translations from the Latin, which was the authoritative text, and therefore the English translation is from the Latin alone (the differences from the Latin in the Armenian and Arabic texts are numerous and complex). For these points, see J. Gill, The Council of Florence, Cambridge 1959, pp. 290-296, 308 and 326.” [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990, page 454]

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m not. Nothing I’ve said could cause you to ask that question, if you have a proper Trinitarian understanding.

He is not composite, but simple in Himself.

Your question betrays what seems to be a rather unorthodox understanding of the Trinity. Why do you use the terms “one place…from another” as if there was any notion of such things in Eternity? All we know is what the Fathers teach:
(1) There is a distinction between hypostasis and ousia.
(2) The Father is the Source of the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit.
(3) All that the Father has, the Son has also, except to be the Father (or Source)
(4) The Spirit receives his Essence from the Father through the Son.

The Traditional Latin (including filioque) and Greek teaching on the Trinity is faithful to these teachings from the Fathers. Your above question (and other anti-filioque EO rhetoric) is not - it is an attempt to delve into the Mystery of the Godhead that is wholly improper.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Spirit does not receive His essence from the Son. That would make for two fonts of divinity. If anything Marduk, it is you who are quite confused, as you have demonstrated with your inability to understand the meaning of simple Greek terms like hyparxis or to grasp the difference between what ousia means in a trinitarian context and what it means in a pagan context.

Similarly, you either do not understand or have no appreciation for Eastern Trinitarian personalism, which sees procession as an hypostatic act. There is no separate procession of the essence. What you do is make the Holy Spirit composite, thinking that essence plus personal identifying characteristics makes one Holy Spirit. This is false in Eastern thinking, as the term hypostasis encompasses both personal characteristics and what is common according to Ss. Basil and Maximus the Confessor who are both quoted by the Synod of Blachernae as having written so. That is to say that the Holy Spirit is a divine hypostasis brought into existence by the Father.

To paraphrase Gregory Palamas: according to essence and energy, the Holy Spirit belongs to the Son, because Christ is God, according to essence and hypostasis the Holy Spirit belongs but does not proceed, and according to energy, it proceeds from and belongs to the Son (this being in accord with the words of St. John of Damascus who teaches that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, but not from the Son). Notice that her leaves no room for procession according to essence.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No its not. He is explaining how the Essence is communicated and is equal in all, with no diminution.

Nice try, but nowhere does he refer to “how God as Trinity is revealed to man.” You are imposing a meaning on a discussion on the ontological substance of the Godhead that is not there.

True, but that is not what St. Gregory is talking about. He is speaking simply about the transmission of the Essence from one to another with no diminution.

And there’s where your interpretation fails, because you utterly fail to take into account his several statements on the flame and the properties of the flame. If the three torches are referring to the ordering, the commonality of the flame and the properties of the flame refers to something else, and it is that commonality in something else that is the whole point of his argument. That commonality is the Essence/Substance, as he very plainly states.

My hermeneutic is properly informed by the Essence/Energy distinction, except that I don’t dare to presume that the Essence/Energy distinction exists WITHIN the Godhead as you do.

Blessings,
Marduk

No Marduk, you are not understanding the context of that quote. He is obviously taking a stab at the pneumatomachians (or some similar heresy), who argued that because the Spirit is third in number that He is subordinate in essence. The torch analogy appropriately shows the Spirit’s manifestation, not procession. Like I told you before, your hermeneutic here is incorrect, because you fail to understand this quotation in light of the teachings of later Fathers like pseudo Dionysus and Gregory Palamas. Would anybody dare argue that the Apostolic Fathers because of their confused usage of ousia and hypostasis did not teach the same as Saint Athanasius who taught three persons and one essence? Here too it is clear that Gregory of Nyssa is talking about what correctly would be energies as they relate to taxis, not the unknowable essence of the Trinity.

Tell me, if you are so informed of the essence energies distinction, how much Palamas or Gregory of Cyprus have you read?

 

[sakares2]

Thank you for your response Apotheoun It is enlightning

Am I missing something? It seems to me that is there is agreement that there are no divisions in the Holy Spirit, (That is to say that he does not get this part from here and this part from there.) and that ekporuesia means to proceed (as in a form of origin or cause) from a single source. Then any Fathers that say the Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporuesia) from the Father through the Son (or speak of an eternal origin though the Son) proves Filioque, and shows that Florence is orthodox. I say this because if the Holy Spirit has his eternal origin From the Father through the Son, there is a manner in which one can say that the Spirit is from the Son (all be it not from the Son as his Source).

What am I missing, it seems as though there is agreement that ekporuesia means to have origin from a single source (in this case eternal.) it also seems that there is agreement that the Holy Spirit is not a composite being (Legos was a good analogy I think). And I dont think that there is dispute of the Patristic texts that say the the Spirit Proceeds (ekporuesia) though the Son.

I am at a loss…

 

[Apotheoun]

When the Eastern Fathers use the phrase “from the Father through the Son” they never attribute any causal power to the Son in relation to the Spirit. In fact, they always reject the notion that the Son is a principle, cause, or source of the Spirit, and that is why the progression of the Spirit through the Son must not be confused with His (i.e., the Spirit’s) procession of origin, both hypostatically and essentially, which is from the Father alone as sole principle, source, and cause within the Godhead.

 

[sakares2]

Yes, Thank you I believe that I have then understood correctly. As long as the Son is not signified as Source of Origin, all is orthodox.

Thus if I were to say that everything that the Spirit has including Nature, Person, Even existence the Spirit has eternally through the Son From the Father his single source of origin.

(in this statement, All causality is given to the Father alone as source of Origin.)

all would be in agreement?

 

[Apotheoun]

Yes, Thank you I believe that I have then understood correctly. As long as the Son is not signified as Source of Origin, all is orthodox.

Thus if I were to say that everything that the Spirit has including Nature, Person, Even existence the Spirit has eternally through the Son From the Father his single source of origin.

(in this statement, All causality is given to the Father alone as source of Origin.)

all would be in agreement?

No, I reject the highlighted portion of your post in particular, because the Spirit has His existence and essence directly from the Father alone, and not from or through the Son. Which is why, in the East, the per Filium applies only to the manifesting energies of the Spirit and not to His reception of existence or essence, which - as I have already indicated - is from the Father alone directly.