Filioque in plain english

[mardukm]

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 relative cause, though never as Source).

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)

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)

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

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)
Btw, here is St. Gregory of Nyssa himself in the context of his own writings proving the Catholic understanding of his analogy of the Three Torches. We don’t need your claims that he is merely speaking of “manifestation.”

He is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son, seeing that He is poured forth by 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 in time, which is the popular belief of many modern EO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

“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)

Interesting, neither says that the Spirit receives the divine essence from the Word, unless you count essence as being a possession.

“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)

What exactly did you doctor out of this quotation, I wonder? Where does it say he receives essence from the Son?

“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)

Funny, I don’t see St. Basil teaching that the Spirit receives essence from the Son either.

“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

Ok, great, where does it say the essence of the Spirit is received from or through the Son?

“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)

Sounds like a great quote which is in full agreement with Gregory Palamas’ teaching on the procession of the Spirit.

“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)

Did Basil really write NOT and SAME in all caps? He is definitely correct, of course, we don’t receive from the Spirit the divine energies in the same way that the Spirit receives the divine energies through the Son.

“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)

Still not seeing that teaching that the essence of the Spirit comes through the Son.

 

[Cavaradossi]

“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)

Getting warmer, but Didymus the Blind says that the Spirit has no subsistence (that is hypostasis) except from the Son. You yourself admit that this is incorrect.

“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)

Strange, another one which confesses that the hypostasis of the Spirit comes from the Son, which you again say is incorrect.

“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)

Ok, great, where does it say that the essence of the Spirit is drawn through the Son?

“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)

Absolutely true, he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. I’ll give you this one. We can talk about it, if you’re able to keep your mind open.

“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)

As you should very well know, this letter was thrown out at Florence, because it essentially showed that the Latins were in heresy and did not teach what St. Maximus was told they did.

“[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)

Of course, he is by nature the Spirit of the Son. We can also talk about this quotation, in light of Gregory Palamas, if you are able to put your disdain for the Eastern Orthodox aside.

“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)

Ok, and? Where does he say that the essence of the Spirit comes through the Son?

“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)

Still not seeing it.

“[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).

That looks like a spurious interpolation. No patriarch would have confessed a different creed than the one of First Constantinople.

So, I count about two in total which support your assertion directly. The rest are open to interpretation. Let’s talk about those two, if you want to.

 

[mardukm]

No, it is you who in your disdain for Eastern Orthodoxy, attack the essence-energies distinction without having read anything by Palamas. Quite frankly, that is a joke.

I don’t disdain Eastern Orthodoxy. What I disdain is disunity, which unfortunately many within EO’xy are willing to maintain on insufficient grounds. I have met individual EO who don’t believe the filioque should be a Church-dividing issue.

You must not be reading what I wrote correctly. If the filioque is true because of perichoresis, as you implied (that is, the procession of the Spirit through the Son is true as a consequence of perichoresis)

I didn’t say the filioque is true because of perichoresis. I said the modern EO claim that the Son has no participation in the existence of the Holy Spirit is false because of perichoresis.

then the reverse must also be true (the Son is begotten through the Spirit) or else the Spirit cleaves to the Son and the Father in an inferior manner to how the Father and the Son cleave to each other.

Fallacy. You are trying to refute an IMPLICATION from my statement, not the statement I made.

Oh but Marduk, those all use some vague English term like subsistence or substance, none of them say ousia. I’m afraid I can’t accept it, just as you can’t accept that hyparxis means existence.

Actually, I affirmed that hyparxeos means existence according to shorthand modern philosophical parlance, and also by way of connotation. But it is not its primary denotation.

But your argument is hypocritical. You depend on the English translation of hyparxeos, and insist on it, yet you try to wiggle out of addressing other English translations. It’s obvious you have no consistent response, my friend.

If you can weasel your way out by saying words don’t mean what they mean, I suppose I can do so too. Of course, we could actually have a real discussion on this, but that would involve learning what the essence-energies distinction is talking about, and what its implications are. You have shown yourself resistant to this.

I am not resistant to analyzing it. I’ve analyzed it and don’t accept it. Your claim that there is an ontological distinction of Essence/Energy WITHIN the Godhead is absent from the early Fathers. I’m sure you THINK you can find it from your later medieval sources, but that is just a development of modern EO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t disdain Eastern Orthodoxy. What I disdain is disunity, which unfortunately many within EO’xy are willing to maintain on insufficient grounds. I have met individual EO who don’t believe the filioque should be a Church-dividing issue.

Well, it is.

I didn’t say the filioque is true because of perichoresis. I said the modern EO claim that the Son has no participation in the existence of the Holy Spirit is false because of perichoresis.

The Son has no participation in the Holy Spirit having existence (that is the procession of the Spirit from the Father). This does not mean that the Son has no participation in the existence of the Holy Spirit through perichoresis anymore than the Son not being begotten through the Holy Spirit means that the Spirit and Son are not cleaved together.

Fallacy. You are trying to refute an IMPLICATION from my statement, not the statement I made.

That is not necessarily a fallacy. For example, Dionysodorus’ argument against the strict application of the law of non contradiction (Socrates is a father, that dog has a father, therefore, Socrates fathered that dog) is not fallacious, it means that the Law of non contradiction has a serious flaw in it, which must be corrected with clarification.

Actually, I affirmed that hyparxeos means existence according to shorthand modern philosophical parlance, and also by way of connotation. But it is not its primary denotation.

But you are by all accounts mistaken. Tropos hyparxeos literally means manner of existence. Tropos means manner, hyparxeos is the genitive of hyparxis (hyparxeos literally meaning of existence), making the nominative, hyparxis simply mean existence. Not only that, but I also showed that a related verb, hyparcho, means to be in existence. Hyparxis definitely means existence.

But your argument is hypocritical. You depend on the English translation of hyparxeos, and insist on it, yet you try to wiggle out of addressing other English translations. It’s obvious you have no consistent response, my friend.

The direction of the language does not matter. If you cannot trust the translators, then neither will I.

I am not resistant to analyzing it. I’ve analyzed it and don’t accept it. Your claim that there is an ontological distinction of Essence/Energy WITHIN the Godhead is absent from the early Fathers. I’m sure you THINK you can find it from your later medieval sources, but that is just a development of modern EO.

You obviously are, since you have not read Gregory Palamas.

 

[Apotheoun]

Proof-texting is a fruitless endeavor, because each side will have its own interpretation of the text in question. Moreover, many of the florilegia used in the medieval period have been ripped from their proper context in order to make them say something that they do not in fact say; while other texts are simply interpolated or entirely spurious, e.g., the quotation from St. Basil’s Adversus Eunomium (see post #141) is now known to have suffered interpolation. In its critical edition it reads as follows:

“Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He also be third in nature? For that He is second pious tradition perhaps recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the saints nor can we conclude from what has been said.”

Another problem with many of these proof-texts is that they are poorly translated. In fact, most of them fail to distinguish between words like ekporeusis, proienai, pempo, etc., to give just a few examples.

 

[mardukm]

English is apparently not your first language.

Interesting, neither says that the Spirit receives the divine essence from the Word, unless you count essence as being a possession.

I think you’re finally getting it. The Holy Spirit is not himself the source of His ousia, but the Father is the Source through the Son. So it is a possession of the HS (albeit a natural possession).

What exactly did you doctor out of this quotation, I wonder? Where does it say he receives essence from the Son?

What else could he mean by “receiving of the Son”? Oh right, the modern EO novelty that separates the ousia from the energeia within the Godhead.

Funny, I don’t see St. Basil teaching that the Spirit receives essence from the Son either.

“Having his being from him” and “completely dependant on him.”

Ok, great, where does it say the essence of the Spirit is received from or through the Son?

Are you serious? That the Spirit is united/conjoined to the Father because of the common ousia is basic Trinity 101. What are they teaching you in your EO catechism classes? St. Basil says that he is conjoined to the Father THROUGH THE SON.

Sounds like a great quote which is in full agreement with Gregory Palamas’ teaching on the procession of the Spirit.

Oh right - your modern EO novelty of separating the ousia from the energeia within the Godhead.

Did Basil really write NOT and SAME in all caps? He is definitely correct, of course, we don’t receive from the Spirit the divine energies in the same way that the Spirit receives the divine energies through the Son.

I highlighted those because your modern EO bias might cause you to miss his point, which you obviously did. When the Fathers say the Spirit “receives” from the Son, they are speaking of the ontological nature of the Godhead, not a mere temporal manifestation. When we receive divinity, we only participate. But when the Spirit receives from the Son, it is an ontological relation. Get it?

Getting warmer, but Didymus the Blind says that the Spirit has no subsistence (that is hypostasis) except from the Son. You yourself admit that this is incorrect.

I suspect that St. Didymus used hyparxeos, not hypostasis, which would be consistent with the Catholic teaching. If hyparxeos is used, it is orthodox.

Strange, another one which confesses that the hypostasis of the Spirit comes from the Son, which you again say is incorrect.

No, I fully admit that the Son can be “cause” in relation to the Holy Spirit, but not “source.” So St. Gregory of Nyssa is fully in line with Catholic teaching, to which I adhere.

Ok, great, where does it say that the essence of the Spirit is drawn through the Son?

The whole purpose of his statement is given in the last sentence. “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.” Remember basic Trinity 101?

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Absolutely true, he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. I’ll give you this one. We can talk about it, if you’re able to keep your mind open.

He is poured forth in a way of ESSENCE from both. That’s plain as day. He’s not talking of Energy, for the plain and simple fact that Essence and Energy are indistinguishable WITHIN the Godhead, contrary to the modern EO novelty.

As you should very well know, this letter was thrown out at Florence, because it essentially showed that the Latins were in heresy and did not teach what St. Maximus was told they did.

From what I know, it was excluded only because of its seeming implication. The fact is, Florence affirmed this teaching, but it used a different term than aitia when referring to the Father alone. So it’s not as if the doctrine was different, only the terminologies. You would understand that if you can put your anti-Catholicism aside for a moment.

Of course, he is by nature the Spirit of the Son. We can also talk about this quotation, in light of Gregory Palamas, if you are able to put your disdain for the Eastern Orthodox aside.

St. Maximos connects the commonality of Essence with the words “He proceeds from the Father ESSENTIALLY through the Son.” I don’t know what mental gymnastics modern EO go through to avoid the obvious intent of this teaching. If it has anything to do with separating the ousia from the energeia WITHIN the Godhead, don’t bother. If you have something else to offer, go ahead.

Ok, and? Where does he say that the essence of the Spirit comes through the Son?

St. John Damascus teaches that the Holy Spirit ekporeusai THROUGH the Son (i.e., the Son is NOT the Source. He teaches what filioque teaches, rightly understood according to what the Latins teach. He is only concerned about the question of Origin/Source, unlike modern EO who deny the role of the Son in the Spirit’s existence. What else would you say is ekporeusai “THROUGH the Son”? If it is not the ousia, tell me what you think he is referrig to for which he utilizes the term ekporeusai? Forget about your “manifestation” theory (which depends on proienai/procedit). He is here utilizing the term ekporeusai.

Still not seeing it.

That’s the teaching of filioque. The idea of “through the Son” is the teaching of filioque. He affirms that the issuing forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father is “THROUGH THE SON.” He affirms the Son’s participation - not as Source, of course - but he affirms it nonetheless, unlike many modern EO.

That looks like a spurious interpolation. No patriarch would have confessed a different creed than the one of First Constantinople.

This was actually presented at Florence, and no one contested it then.

So, I count about two in total which support your assertion directly. The rest are open to interpretation. Let’s talk about those two, if you want to.

I think all of them confirm the Latin teaching on filioque - that the Son participates in the Procession of Being of the Holy Spirit, though not as Source.

Still not seeing that teaching that the essence of the Spirit comes through the Son.

Understood. I await your responses.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Proof-texting is a fruitless endeavor, because each side will have its own interpretation of the text in question. Moreover, many of the florilegia used in the medieval period have been ripped from their proper context in order to make them say something that they do not in fact say; while other texts are simply interpolated or entirely spurious, e.g., the quotation from St. Basil’s Adversus Eunomium (see post #141) is now known to have suffered interpolation. In its critical edition it reads as follows:

“Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He also be third in nature? For that He is second pious tradition perhaps recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the saints nor can we conclude from what has been said.”

What is the rationale for claiming the text I quoted was interpolated? The text certainly reflects traditional patristic teaching (e.g. St. Athanasius and St. Gregory Nazianzen to name a few). It also aligns perfectly with his other statement that the Spirit is conjoined to(i.e. consubstantial with) the Father THROUGH the Son.

Another problem with many of these proof-texts is that they are poorly translated. In fact, most of them fail to distinguish between words like ekporeusis, proienai, pempo, etc., to give just a few examples.

I think the context makes it clear. For example, even though St. Cyril uses the term proienai, he is clearly speaking of the OUSIA. So the modern EO claim that he is only referring to the energetic manifestation is spurious. When referring to the ousia, St. Cyril utilizes proienai, exactly as the Latins use procedit because they have always understood the Credal phrase at issue to be referring to the ousia.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Apotheoun]

What is the rationale for claiming the text I quoted was interpolated? The text certainly reflects traditional patristic teaching (e.g. St. Athanasius and St. Gregory Nazianzen to name a few). It also aligns perfectly with his other statement that the Spirit is conjoined to(i.e. consubstantial with) the Father THROUGH the Son.

I know that the quotation from St. Basil is interpolated because I have seen the critical edition of the text, and there is no mention in that text of the Spirit “having His being” from the Son. That said, I have not looked up each and every quotation in the original Greek (or Latin) sources in order to see if others are interpolated as well, but if I have the time I may do that, because I really do not like the dishonesty of proof-texts torn from the proper context and poorly translated in order to support a particular position whether Catholic or Orthodox.

I think the context makes it clear. For example, even though St. Cyril uses the term proienai, he is clearly speaking of the OUSIA. So the modern EO claim that he is only referring to the energetic manifestation is spurious. When referring to the ousia, St. Cyril utilizes proienai, exactly as the Latins use procedit because they have always understood the Credal phrase at issue to be referring to the ousia.

The context of the quotation cannot be determined by the single sentence posted in this thread, but perhaps you can supply the rest of the text so that the quoted sentence can be read in the light of what comes before and after it. Alas, until that is done I really cannot tell if the quotation from St. Cyril concerns theologia or economia, but I do know that St. Cyril commonly used proienai to refer to the economic sending of the Spirit by the Son.

Now as far as the quotation from Quaestiones ad Thalassium is concerned, it is another text that needs to be placed in its proper context in order to really understand what it is that St. Maximos is talking about. That said, I do know that right after the quoted information provided in this thread St. Maximos speaks of the divine energies flowing out upon the lamp-stand of the Church, which is clearly an economic reality, and so it is possible that he is speaking economically in the quoted portion of the text as well. After all, it must not be forgotten that the term ekporeusis is sometimes used in connection with the divine energies, which have their source in the Father, and which flow out from Him through the Son in the Holy Spirit to the world.

Finally, I would simply point out that many of the texts can be easily conformed to the Orthodox viewpoint, but that is only logical since the Eastern Fathers - in a particular way - are the foundation of the Orthodox Church.

P.S. - I hate to say it but the proof-text posts in this thread look like something that could be found on an internet site dedicated to defending the filioque from Orthodox criticism.

 

[mardukm]

I know that the quotation from St. Basil is interpolated because I have seen the critical edition of the text, and there is no mention in that text of the Spirit “having His being” from the Son. That said, I have not looked up each and every quotation in the original Greek (or Latin) sources in order to see if others are interpolated as well, but if I have the time I may do that, because I really do not like the dishonesty of proof-texts torn from the proper context and poorly translated in order to support a particular position whether Catholic or Orthodox.

Which critical edition are you speaking of? What are the sources? Even if we assume the critical edition is correct, other statements from Basil demonstrate he had a Catholic, not modern Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinitarian relationships (i.e., with the Father as the priniciple of “from” [origin/soruce] and the Son being the principle of “through” [cause, but not origin/source] of the Spirit).

The context of the quotation cannot be determined by the single sentence posted in this thread, but perhaps you can supply the rest of the text so that the quoted sentence can be read in the light of what comes before and after it.

I have read a fuller context before online, I will try to look for it.

Alas, until that is done I really cannot tell if the quotation from St. Cyril concerns theologia or economia, but I do know that St. Cyril commonly used proienai to refer to the economic sending of the Spirit by the Son.

Regardless of that consideration, it still cannot diminish the clear statement from St. Cyril that he is referring to the Nature/Substance/Essence being communicated through or from the Son from the Father. An explanation which you might not have considered is that St. Cyril is perfectly fine with using proienai with both energeia and ousia (as distinct from hypostasis) because he, like all the early Fathers, do not understand there to be a distinction or separation between energeia/ousia WITHIN the Godhead. The clear statement from St. Cyril would only counfound those who impose a real distinction of energeia/ousia WITHIN the Godhead for the purpose of arguing against the Latin doctrine of filioque.

Now as far as the quotation from Quaestiones ad Thalassium is concerned, it is another text that needs to be placed in its proper context in order to really understand what it is that St. Maximos is talking about. That said, I do know that right after the quoted information provided in this thread St. Maximos speaks of the divine energies flowing out upon the lamp-stand of the Church, which is clearly an economic reality, and so it is possible that he is speaking economically in the quoted portion of the text as well. After all, it must not be forgotten that the term ekporeusis is sometimes used in connection with the divine energies, which have their source in the Father, and which flow out from Him through the Son in the Holy Spirit to the world.

Again, that is par for the course if one understands that the early Fathers did not claim nor know of a real distinction of energeia/ousia WITHIN the Godhead. They can use ekporeusai sometimes in reference to the divine energies because there is no distinction between the divine Essence and the divine Energy within the Godhead. Their only concern was preserving the notion of the Father as Source (the principle of being “from”). The Son being the principle of 'through" or relative cause (i,e, not the Source) for the Holy Spirit was to them a thoroughly orthodox concept. But the modern EO argument has evolved and is not identical to the concerns of your forbears.

Finally, I would simply point out that many of the texts can be easily conformed to the Orthodox viewpoint, but that is only logical since the Eastern Fathers - in a particular way - are the foundation of the Orthodox Church.

I don’t see how. A certain popular segment of EO’xy teaches that the Son has no participation in the communication of the Divine Essence to the Holy Spirit. All the early Fathers teach otherwise.

P.S. - I hate to say it but the proof-text posts in this thread look like something that could be found on an internet site dedicated to defending the filioque from Orthodox criticism.

Except for the quote from St. Didymus, I have personally seen the contexts of those other quotes in the NPNF series, and they contextually adhere to the Catholic teaching. Of course, I don’t expect you to take my word for it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Todd,

Can you respond to the following:

(1) Are you familiar with Fr. John Zizoulias? He says this: It is historically true that in the Greek tradition a clear distinction was always made between εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) and προείναι (proeinai), the first of these two terms denoting exclusively the Spirit’s derivation from the Father alone, whereas προείναι (proienai) was used to denote the Holy Spirit’s dependence on the Son owing to the common substance or ουσία (ousia) which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or υπόστασις (hypostasis) receives from the Son, too, as ουσιωδώς (ousiwdws) that is, with regard to the one ουσία (ousia) common to all three persons (Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor et al). On the basis of this distinction one might argue that there is a kind of Filioque on the level of ουσία (ousia), but not of υπόστασις (hypostasis).

This is the point I’ve been making all along, and it seems there are some EO who agree. My question is, were you aware of this viewpoint within EO’xy? It seems Cavaradossi was not (as that was one of the main contentions of our whole debate/discussion). Would you regard this as being within the scope of the Eastern Byzantine Tradition - particularly the sentence highlighted above in red?

(2) The later medieval Byzantine sources speak of the “eternal manifestation.” I have read many places that this confounds many EO since to many EO the manifestation is only temporal and only refers to energeia. The question I’ve read posed by EO is “if the manifestation is temporal, what is being manifested in Eternity?” I thought about how St. Augustine speaks of the Holy Spirit as the Love manifested between Father and Son. I think the two expressions (“eternal manifestation” and “Love manifested between Father and Son”) are conspicuously similar. Do you think there is a connection that can offer hope for rapprochement there?

Granted, I am of the “God is simple within Himself” camp (as per the Oriental Tradition). I can see where Blacharnae’s and St. Augustine’s statements coincide (i.e., Love is simultaneously ousia/energeia, not just energeia, WITHIN the Godhead). But I suppose that for those who interpret Blacharnae and Palamas as imposing a real distinction between Essence and Energy WITHIN the Godhead, there might not be any expected rapprochement?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sakares2]

Thank you for your answers Apotheoun, I am enjoying them very much! I want so badly to understand and your help is much appreciated. I am going to try to quote your last post to me, but as I am new to forums I can only hope it works. here goes…

Not quite. It still sounds like you think the Son is “doing” something in the procession of the Spirit, and yet He is not. The Father is the sole cause, the sole source and principle in the generation of the Son and in the procession of the Spirit, and so the Son as person has nothing whatsoever to do with the Spirit’s eternal origin, nor does the Spirit have anything to do with the Son’s eternal origin. Both the Son and Spirit receive their hypostatic existence and being from the Father, and this causal power is a personal reality unique to the Father, and of course the Father’s peculiar hypostatic characteristics cannot be shared with the Son or the Spirit without falling into Sabellian Modalism.

I had actually not meant to imply that the Son was doing anything actually, I am sorry if I made it sound that way. If I add that the son does nothing absolutely nothing, and reiterate as you have that the son as a person has no personal role in the procession of the Spirit, is then the analogy correct?

My understanding was that it is in the Begetting of the Son (with the action of the Father being the sole origin of the begetting) that the Holy Spirit Proceeds, and it is I think perhaps also (I think hesychios mention or at least eluded to this) through the procession (ekporuesia) of the Spirit (an act from the Father alone as sole source) that the Son is begotten.

This type of relationship is in opposition to a type of relationship where the Father Begets the Son in a way that is unrelated and independant to procession, and that the Procession from the Father occurs in a way unrelated and independant of the begetting of the Son. in this case the statement could be made that The Spirit proceeds in a manner other than in the begetting of the Son.

From what I have understood, I believe that you express the former of these views (the one illustrated by the word/breath analogy) where the procession and begetting are two interdependant (perhaps this word is too strong, interrelated may be better, but the relationship i am trying to get at by this word is again similar to the breath/word analogy) actions that each have the Father as their sole source of Origin.

It has seemed as though as post go by, I have come closer and closer. with these statements/clarification have I understood?

 

[sakares2]

Mardukm, This is part of the Confusion for me at least, because I have read very Prominant Orthodox Theologians, such as Zizioulas that agree that Church Fathers spoke of the ousia eternally proceeding through the Son, and when I look to the council of florence, I see that when presented with evidence (including St. Cyril) for an eternal procession through the Son, St Mark of Ephesus did not point and say that these Fathers were speaking of an energetic procession. He interpreted them as supporting filioque (one that is not of energetic procession but something else), and thus said that they must be false. This would indicate to me that at this time the texts in question were considered in support of an eternal origin of the Spirit through the Son in a manner that is other than an energetic procession.

Am I mistaken on this?

 

[mardukm]

Mardukm, This is part of the Confusion for me at least, because I have read very Prominant Orthodox Theologians, such as Zizioulas that agree that Church Fathers spoke of the ousia eternally proceeding through the Son, and when I look to the council of florence, I see that when presented with evidence (including St. Cyril) for an eternal procession through the Son, St Mark of Ephesus did not point and say that these Fathers were speaking of an energetic procession. He interpreted them as supporting filioque (one that is not of energetic procession but something else), and thus said that they must be false. This would indicate to me that at this time the texts in question were considered in support of an eternal origin of the Spirit through the Son in a manner that is other than an energetic procession.

Am I mistaken on this?

I have read from others that Mark of Ephesus simply rejected the patristic texts offered by the Latins at Florence. Moderny EO’xy has actually tried to rationalize the patristic texts by claiming they refer only to the energeia, though the texts plainly state they refer to the ousia.

I think the problem is that many people read St. Palamas through the lens of modern EO exegetes. I have read some (not all) of St. Palamas and have not come to the same conclusions. In truth, I USED to think that St. Palamas taught a real distinction between Essence and Energy WITHIN the Godhead, but admittedly, what I read was within the context of an Eastern Orthodox assessment. I never actually read anything from him on its own. After an Eastern Catholic suggested to me that Palamas did not make such a clear and hard distinction, I went ahead and read what I could find from him, not through the “benefit” of EO exegesis, and I have found that Palamas does not really.

From what I have read of St. Palamas, I know for a fact that he taught:
(1) Hypostasis is composed of BOTH ousia and energeia.
(2) God is Hypostasis.

What I have not found sufficient proof for from St. Palamas’ writings himself is a hard and fast distinction between ousia and energeia WITHIN the Godhead. He certainly always speaks of such a distinction in relation to Creation and our participability in divinity, but I haven’t seen any indication from him that such a distinction actually exists WITHIN the Godhead - though to be sure, modern EO exegetes always claim that.

The other problem that I find with modern EO development regarding St. Palamas’ Trinitarian theology is the modern EO claim that the Son has no participation in the Hypostasis of the Spirit. If St. Palamas taught that Hypostasis is necessarily composed of both ousia and energeia, and St. Palamas admits at least that the Son participates in the the energetic procession, I do not see how modern EO can claim that they can use Palamas to support their modern teaching that the Son has no participation in the Hypostasis of the Spirit. At best, one can conclude from St. Palamas that the Son is not the SOURCE of the hypostasis - i.e., only the Father is. But “AFTER” (in quotes to indicate there is really no such notion in Eternity) the origination of hypostasis, “AFTER” the origination of ousia/energeia from the Father, the flow of the ousia/energeia to the Holy Spirit is THROUGH the Son.

Interestingly, St. Palamas often speaks of the distinction between the hypostatic procession and the energetic procession. But I’ve never read anything from him that claims a distinction between the procession of ousia and the procession of energeia.

The issue here is that when St. Palamas speaks of a distinction between hypostatic procession (in which Palamas affirms the Father alone is the principle of being “from”) and the energetic procession (in which Palamas admits the Son participates as the principle of being “through”), modern EO exegetes assume the ousia is attached to the hypostasis, but the energeia is not. This is illogical since St. Palamas clearly taught that Hypostasis is composed of BOTH ousia and energeia. If anything, the ousia must be accomodated within the term “energetic procession” since there is no distinction between Ousia (on the one hand) and Energeia (on the other) within the Godhead, though there IS a distinction between Hypostasis (on the one hand) and Ousia/Energeia (on the other), as admitted by St. Palamas and all the early Fathers of the Church.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sakares2]

Yes Mardukm, It does help I think, To what extent exactly I do not know yet as the subject matter that we are discussing is so complex, that I fear it may take some time before I could respond with even more questions if they arise. It will take me time, and I will have to reread your post a few times. But thank you very much. I am curious however what your view would be on the statement that

the Father causes (and is sole and only cause and source) the Spirit to Proceed (ekporuesia From the Father alone) By Begetting the Son (who does not personally cause or do anything in of himself to cause this Procession any more than he could Cause his own being begotten, which he cannot do. ), and that The Father Causes the Son to be (He begets Him) by the Procession of the Spirit from Him (The Father) (with the spirit also not being a cause of the Son in anyway.)

 

[mardukm]

the Father causes (and is sole and only cause and source) the Spirit to Proceed (ekporuesia From the Father alone) By Begetting the Son (who does not personally cause or do anything in of himself to cause this Procession any more than he could Cause his own being begotten, which he cannot do. ), and that The Father Causes the Son to be by the Procession of the Spirit from Him (The Father) (with the spirit also not being a cause of the Son in anyway.)

I highlighed the portions with which I agree.

That the Father “causes the Spirit to be by the Generation” is the Traditional teaching of the early Church (the most explicit statement on this is St. Gregory Nazianzen - “If there was a time the Father was not, there was a time the Son was not; if there was a time when the Son was not, there was a time when the Spirit was not.” Unfortunately, Pneumatomachi twisted the orthodox intent of that statement and used it to support their heresy that the Spirit is a creature). That the Father “causes the Son to be by the Procession” has absolutely no patristic support. The principle of being “through” is a hypostatic property of the Son, not the Spirit. The order of the Names has been the Traditional basis for the order of relations within the Godhead. It is always Father-Son-Holy Spirit, not Father-Holy Spirit-Son.

However, I do believe that I have read one or two orthodox Fathers make a statement akin to “when the Father generated the Son, the Holy Spirit was present.” But it was merely to highlight the common Eternal nature of the Persons (and perhaps the doctrine of perichoresis), and not meant to say anything about the ontological order of relations.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

That is an interesting quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas, but I say that mainly because it is in open disagreement with the explicit teaching of St. John Damascene who said:

“It 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” [St. John Damascene, *De Fide Orthodoxa

, 1:8].
*
The word “procedat” is used there in the reply. The Objection 4 is:

*Objection 4. Further, Nothing proceeds from that wherein it rests. But the Holy Ghost rests in the Son; for it is said in the legend of St. Andrew: “Peace be to you and to all who believe in the one God the Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son.” Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Reply to Objection 4 (partial)
“To say that the Holy Spirit reposes or dwells in the Son does not exclude his proceeding from the Son; for we say also that the Son dwells in the Father, although he proceeds from the Father” …
Summa Theologica, a, q. 36, a. 2, 4um.

Latin:Ad quartum dicendum quod per hoc quod spiritus sanctus dicitur quiescere vel manere in filio, non excluditur quin ab eo procedat, quia et filius in patre manere dicitur, cum tamen a patre procedat.
The quote in your post is used in Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): “We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son.” Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Reply to Objection 3: The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.
Latin:Ad tertium dicendum quod spiritum sanctum non procedere a filio, primo fuit a Nestorianis introductum; ut patet in quodam symbolo Nestorianorum damnato in Ephesina synodo. Et hunc errorem secutus fuit Theodoretus Nestorianus, et plures post ipsum; inter quos fuit etiam Damascenus. Unde in hoc eius sententiae non est standum. Quamvis a quibusdam dicatur quod Damascenus, sicut non confitetur spiritum sanctum esse a filio, ita etiam non negat, ex vi illorum verborum.
corpusthomisticum.org/sth1028.html
newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article4

 

[Hermoine]

Thanks for the links.