Filioque question in EC divine liturgy

[Hesychios]

I want to be clear on something Do the Eastern Orthdox view christs role in the going forth of the Spirit as a second procession, ie one Source but two different processions, that is one from the Father and one from Christ or do they beleive that the procession from Christ is the same procession as from the Father, ie like the Father is the source of the River, whilst also being the river and Christ is like the river which is channeled through him but can also be directed by him in a different direction/way than the Fathers direction.

I just want to be clear on this as much as I can.

thanks

Tim

Questions about the Eastern Orthodox belong in the non-Catholic religions section.

If you want to know what Eastern Cathoolics think, you are in the right place.

 

[Hesychios]

I want to be clear on something Do the Eastern Orthdox view christs role in the going forth of the Spirit as a second procession, ie one Source but two different processions, that is one from the Father and one from Christ or do they beleive that the procession from Christ is the same procession as from the Father, ie like the Father is the source of the River, whilst also being the river and Christ is like the river which is channeled through him but can also be directed by him in a different direction/way than the Fathers direction.

I just want to be clear on this as much as I can.

thanks

Tim

Questions about the Eastern Orthodox belong in the non-Catholic religions section.

If you want to know what Eastern Catholics think, you are in the right place.

 

[Vico]

Can the term be found in the documents of Eccumenical Councils? Or in a dogmatic proclimation by the Bishop of Rome? Perhaps this is what brother Mardukum is driving at.

In the West we actually do use that term, because it suits our theology. We understand what it means, it is familiar to us and we know that it is not heresy when its used. However when the Church Universal is addressed, when we draw up Eccumencial documents is “double procession” a term we would use?

Crazzeto, Mardukm,

I do not personally use the term “double procession” (although I posted here about that term) but recognize that Anslem and others have and that there is long history of the use of that term. It is not simply the use or non-use of the filioque in the liturgy that has been a source of conflict, rather that the single consubstantial spiration is not entirely accepted in Orthodoxy because of the idea of Photius that the Holy Spirit only proceeds ‘through the Son’ in a temporal sense (i.e., Christ’s pouring forth of the Spirit upon the Church) and not an eternal sense.

The Roman tradition holds two truths :

1. the Father is the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit’s procession (“ekporeusis”)
2. the consubstantial communion of Father and Son in the procession of the Spirit (“proienai”), the collective sense

 

[Ignatios]

“EKPOREUSAI THROUGH the Son” is equivalent to “PROCEDIT AND the Son.”

1. This exactly where we differ, it is when you use the “through the SON” eternally or out of time, the Orthodox formula when using the “through the SON” is temporally or in time, relying on the Holy Tradition ( And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. John 20:21-23 ) this is not the ekporeusis this the manifestation and manifestation is not ekporeusis, the ekporeusis refers to the procession of the LORD Holy Spirit† Eternally, and when speaking of eternal matters you can only speak of what had been revealed to us, relying again on the Holy Tradition (But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:John 15:25-27) for no one can comprehend the eternal, and the word *through * if eternally used, it denotes to order, order to time thus you find yourself speaking in time.
2. “through the SON” does not tell the same as “and from the SON” for when using the word through, you are necessarily introducing order and/or time ( FATHER (1) SON(2) Holy Spirit(3) ] thus you got yourself in a massive collision when you come to speak of the sameness of the PERSONS of the Most Holy Trinity†, therefore it can only be used in a temporal i.e. we knew (HE was revealed to us) the Lord Holy Spirit† last, through the Lord Jesus Christ when CHRIST had come to earth (temporal) and then he revealed to us the Lord Holy Spirit†, if not then you are using wrong term.
   “and from the SON” keeping in mind the teaching of the RCC, it denotes to double procession (as it was taught at one time by the RCC) and it denotes necessarily to order,
   only this time you must find different term other than the word TRINITY ( may GOD frogive us from such sayings for we speak as such only to clarify ) because you have less than three (FATHER and SON (1) Holy Spirit (2)]

You need to consider the WHOLE context and not just those two terms “through” and “and” by themselves.

Blessings,
Marduk

hhhhmmmm did you include the WHOLE context in your reply??? Nope, you didn’t, I only replied to what you have written my friend, so if there is a lack, it is on your behalf, because it was only those tow terms you yourself used by themselves/U.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[crazzeto]

Crazzeto, Mardukm,

I do not personally use the term “double procession” (although I posted here about that term) but recognize that Anslem and others have and that there is long history of the use of that term. It is not simply the use or non-use of the filioque in the liturgy that has been a source of conflict, rather that the single consubstantial spiration is not entirely accepted in Orthodoxy because of the idea of Photius that the Holy Spirit only proceeds ‘through the Son’ in a temporal sense (i.e., Christ’s pouring forth of the Spirit upon the Church) and not an eternal sense.

The Roman tradition holds two truths :

1. the Father is the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit’s procession (“ekporeusis”)
2. the consubstantial communion of Father and Son in the procession of the Spirit (“proienai”), the collective sense

I’ve heard this theory before, however I really can’t see the justification for a temporal only double procession… And in fact, given what is said here of Photius I really don’t know that I would consider that a “double procession” in any sense (through the Son)…

I realize I’m throughly Latin in my thinking, so perhaps this is my “handy cap” as it were in viewing the issue. But given particularly the depiction of the Holy Trinity as presented in the end of revelation I really and truely can not see anything other than an eternal procession as described by the Latin Fathers, or some compatible form from the Eastern Fathers.

At least thats me.

 

[Vico]

I’ve heard this theory before, however I really can’t see the justification for a temporal only double procession… And in fact, given what is said here of Photius I really don’t know that I would consider that a “double procession” in any sense (through the Son)…

I realize I’m throughly Latin in my thinking, so perhaps this is my “handy cap” as it were in viewing the issue. But given particularly the depiction of the Holy Trinity as presented in the end of revelation I really and truely can not see anything other than an eternal procession as described by the Latin Fathers, or some compatible form from the Eastern Fathers.

At least thats me.

It is dogma that there are two internal processions.

The dogma of the Lateran Council IV (1215) expresses the issue of difference with the Orthodox:
‘The Substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in Persons and unity in Nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to Him his substance …

It is clear that, in being begotten the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from them both, are one same reality"

(Denzinger-Schonmetzer 804-805, Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum.)

432 We, however, with the approval of the sacred Council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a most excellent reality, incomprehensible indeed and ineffable, which truly is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, at the same time three Persons, and anyone of the same individually; and so in God there is Trinity only, not a quaternity; because any one of the three Persons is that reality, namely, substance, essence or divine nature, which alone is the beginning of all things, beyond which nothing else can be found, and that reality is not generating, nor generated, nor proceeding, but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is generated, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds, so that distinctions are in Persons and unity in nature. Therefore, although “one is the Father, another the Son, and another the Holy Spirit, yet they are not different” * but what is the Father is the Son and the Holy Spirit entirely the same, so that according to the true and Catholic Faith they are believed to be consubstantial. For the Father from eternity by generating the Son gave His substance to Him according to which He Himself testifies: “That which the Father has given to me is greater than all things” [John 10:29]. But it cannot be said that He (the Father) has given a part of His substance to Him (the Son), and retained a part for Himself, since the substance of the Father is indivisible, namely, simple. But neither can it be said that the Father has transferred His substance to the Son in generating, as if He had given that to the Son which he did not retain for Himself; otherwise the substance would have ceased to exist. It is clear, therefore, that the Son in being born without any diminution received the substance of the Father, and thus the Father and the Son have the same substance, and so this same reality is the Father and the Son and also the Holy Spirit proceeding from both. But when Truth prays to the Father for His faithful saying: “I will that they may be one in us, as we also are one” John 17:22]: this word “one” indeed is accepted for the faithful in such a way that a union of charity in grace is understood, for the divine Persons in such a way that a unity of identity in nature is considered, as elsewhere Truth says: “Be . . . perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect” [Matt. 5:48 ], as if He said more clearly, “Be perfect” in the perfection of grace “as your heavenly Father is perfect” in the perfection of grace, that is, each in his own manner, because between the Creator and the creature so great a likeness cannot be noted without the necessity of noting a greater dissimilarity between them. If anyone, therefore, shall presume to defend or approve the opinion or doctrine of the above mentioned Joachim, let him be refuted as a heretic by all.

(Denzinger 432, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

1. This exactly where we differ, it is when you use the “through the SON” eternally or out of time, the Orthodox formula when using the “through the SON” is temporally or in time, relying on the Holy Tradition ( And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. John 20:21-23 ) this is not the ekporeusis this the manifestation and manifestation is not ekporeusis, the ekporeusis refers to the procession of the LORD Holy Spirit† Eternally, and when speaking of eternal matters you can only speak of what had been revealed to us, relying again on the Holy Tradition (But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:John 15:25-27) for no one can comprehend the eternal, and the word *through * if eternally used, it denotes to order, order to time thus you find yourself speaking in time.

I thoroughly understand that your opinion reflects a popular understanding in MODERN Eastern Orthodoxy, but it does not reflect the teaching of Eastern Christendom, at least up until the time of St. Palamas. Your greatest authorities on the issue of the Procession - the Synod of Blacharnae and St. Gregory Palamas, both taught that this manifestation is ETERNAL. The teaching of MODERN EO’xy (not saying that all of EO’xy fits this bill), is that the manifestation is only termporal. St. Palamas specifically referred to it as the ETERNAL ENERGETIC Procession, to be distinguished from the ETERNAL HYPOSTATIC Procession. St. Palamas’ teaching is pretty much identicial (except for the nuance of Essence/Energy) with the Latin Catholic teaching on filioque.

Both Traditional Eastern Orthodoxy (to which Eastern Catholicism has remained faithful)and the Latin Catholic Church taught -
(1) The distinction between ousia (i.e. essence/substance) and hypostasis;
(2) All the divine properties of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

The only difference is that while the Latin Catholic Church understood these properties to be the ESSENCE/ SUBSTANCE (i.e., ousia) of God, Traditional Eastern Orthodoxy understood these properties to be the ENERGY of God.

Brother Michael (Hesychios) is correct that on this point, there is a difference in the theology of Eastern Catholicism and the popular (not Traditional) theology of modern Eastern Orthodoxy. The theology of Eastern Catholicism is faithful to the true Tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy on the matter of procession, while modern Eastern Orthodoxy (or at least a portion of it) has introduced a novelty into Trinitarian theology (with the idea that the procession of divine Energy from the Father through the Son to the Holy Spirit is merely termporal).

1. “through the SON” does not tell the same as “and from the SON” for when using the word through, you are necessarily introducing order and/or time ( FATHER (1) SON(2) Holy Spirit(3) ] thus you got yourself in a massive collision when you come to speak of the sameness of the PERSONS of the Most Holy Trinity†, therefore it can only be used in a temporal i.e. we knew (HE was revealed to us) the Lord Holy Spirit† last, through the Lord Jesus Christ when CHRIST had come to earth (temporal) and then he revealed to us the Lord Holy Spirit†, if not then you are using wrong term.
   “and from the SON” keeping in mind the teaching of the RCC, it denotes to double procession (as it was taught at one time by the RCC) and it denotes necessarily to order,
   only this time you must find different term other than the word TRINITY ( may GOD frogive us from such sayings for we speak as such only to clarify ) because you have less than three (FATHER and SON (1) Holy Spirit (2)]

That’s a massive set of convoluted syllogisms, brother. I can’t pretend to even understand your “logic.” It is sufficient to point out that though you pretend that “through the Son” introduces time into eternity, you fail to take into account that the very language of “beget” and “procession” does the exact same thing. In fact, your “introducing time into eternity” argument is not new - it was the exact same argument that the Arians and Pneumatomachi used against the Catholic Church to deny the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. I suggest you read what the Fathers had to say about this ridiculous argument.

Hhhhmmmm did you include the WHOLE context in your reply??? Nope, you didn’t

Maybe, maybe not. But it was a lot more context than your own argument based merely on the terms “through” and “and.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

It is dogma that there are two internal processions.

The dogma of the Lateran Council IV (1215) expresses the issue of difference with the Orthodox:

Sorry, but I couldn’t find a single statement about “two internal processions.” Can you perhaps point it out more explicitly?

I know that some Fathers sometimes spoke of the Begetting as a type of procession. But that is the only patristic claim I know of that refers to “two processions.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[crazzeto]

Dear brother Vico,

Sorry, but I couldn’t find a single statement about “two internal processions.” Can you perhaps point it out more explicitly?

I know that some Fathers sometimes spoke of the Begetting as a type of procession. But that is the only patristic claim I know of that refers to “two processions.”

Blessings,
Marduk

I missed it as well actually, though I am not able at this moment to spend any great amount of time staring at it.

 

[Yingchun]

all the dogmas are misunderstood. Merriam-Webster give the meaning of double procession: the theological doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. So it is good for people to be aware of the standard English meaning. Also The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church mentions no other doctrines using the term other than the western church.

coach outlet|Coach Bracelets|Office 2007|office 2010

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

Sorry, but I couldn’t find a single statement about “two internal processions.” Can you perhaps point it out more explicitly?

I know that some Fathers sometimes spoke of the Begetting as a type of procession. But that is the only patristic claim I know of that refers to “two processions.”

Blessings,
Marduk

No, I am not saying that the terminology was used in the quotes, the communication of the divine essence. That in God there are two internal divine processions is a de fide dogma: the Begetting of the Son and the procession of the Holy Ghost. An internal divine procession is the origin of a Divine Person through the communication of the numerically one divine essence. So there are in God three Persons really distinct from one another. (See Denzinger 86, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.)

This specifically is what I believe the Orthodox object to, because Photius made a point of it – although it seems he had a different theology in mind than many Orthodox today – because of his belief that the Holy Spirit only proceeds ‘through the Son’ in a temporal sense (i.e., Christ’s pouring forth of the Spirit upon the Church) and not an eternal sense.

Interestingly, temporal procession is expressed, per Catholic theology, in John 8:42 and John 15:26 rather than internal procession. (Per Ludwig Ott.)

 

[Hesychios]

… in God there are two internal divine processions is a de fide dogma: the Begetting of the Son and the procession of the Holy Ghost. An internal divine procession is the origin of a Divine Person through the communication of the numerically one divine essence. So there are in God three Persons really distinct from one another. (See Denzinger 86, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.)

This specifically is what I believe the Orthodox object to, because Photius made a point of it – although it seems he had a different theology in mind than many Orthodox today – because of his belief that the Holy Spirit only proceeds ‘through the Son’ in a temporal sense (i.e., Christ’s pouring forth of the Spirit upon the Church) and not an eternal sense.

Interestingly, temporal procession is expressed, per Catholic theology, in John 8:42 and John 15:26 rather than internal procession. (Per Ludwig Ott.)

I agree.

 

[crazzeto]

No, I am not saying that the terminology was used in the quotes, the communication of the divine essence. That in God there are two internal divine processions is a de fide dogma: the Begetting of the Son and the procession of the Holy Ghost. An internal divine procession is the origin of a Divine Person through the communication of the numerically one divine essence. So there are in God three Persons really distinct from one another. (See Denzinger 86, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.)

This specifically is what I believe the Orthodox object to, because Photius made a point of it – although it seems he had a different theology in mind than many Orthodox today – because of his belief that the Holy Spirit only proceeds ‘through the Son’ in a temporal sense (i.e., Christ’s pouring forth of the Spirit upon the Church) and not an eternal sense.

Interestingly, temporal procession is expressed, per Catholic theology, in John 8:42 and John 15:26 rather than internal procession. (Per Ludwig Ott.)

John 8:42

42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

(2009). The Ignatius Bible . Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

John 15:26

26In that day you will ask in my name; and I do not say to you that I shall ask the Father for you;

(2009). The Ignatius Bible . Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

I actually don’t see the support for a temporal procession, particularly of the Holy Spirit given Christ is talking of him self. There is, finally, a temporal element to John 15:26, but I don’t know that I can agree that this temporal element referrs to a temporal procession of the spirit (or Christ, for that matter).

Edit
If anything John 8:24 for me, tends to refute the idea of a temporal procession. But that’s just me.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,

I thoroughly understand that your opinion reflects a popular understanding in MODERN Eastern Orthodoxy,

Dear Mardukm,
If my opinion is considered as “modern Orthodoxy” in your comprehension, then this “Modern Orthodoxy” is as old as the Church itself, simply because its origin is in the Holy Tradition of the Church itself and actually this very opinion is seen in the writing of the early Church fathers ALSO it is a very old feast in the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD i.e. the manifestation of the Holy Spirit to the world: "The Holy Spirit that Christ had promised to his disciples came on the day of Pentecost (Jn 14:26, 15:26; Lk 24:49; Acts 1:5). The apostles received “the power from on high,” and they began to preach and bear witness to Jesus as the risen Christ, the King and the Lord. This moment has traditionally been called the birthday of the Church.
In the liturgical services of the feast of Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit is celebrated together with the full revelation of the divine Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The fulness of the Godhead is manifested with the Spirit’s coming to man, and the Church hymns celebrate this manifestation as the final act of God’s self-disclosure and self-donation to the world of His creation."
oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=79

but it does not reflect the teaching of Eastern Christendom, at least up until the time of St. Palamas. Your greatest authorities on the issue of the Procession - the Synod of Blacharnae and St. Gregory Palamas, both taught that this manifestation is ETERNAL. The teaching of MODERN EO’xy (not saying that all of EO’xy fits this bill), is that the manifestation is only termporal. St. Palamas specifically referred to it as the ETERNAL ENERGETIC Procession, to be distinguished from the ETERNAL HYPOSTATIC Procession. St. Palamas’ teaching is pretty much identicial (except for the nuance of Essence/Energy) with the Latin Catholic teaching on filioque.

1. There are many in the eastern Christendom that are not of the same opinion as the Orthodox Church from the beginning, the Oriental Orthodox are, fundamentally speaking, so I agree with this statement.
2. Wrong, you may want to consider St. John of Damascus writings(700s) predate St Palamas and the Blachernae by500 to 700 years. and if you use The Cappadocian fathers now you are talking about 1000years.
3. Wrong again, Blachernae and St. Palamas taught that in the general sense( proienai), it seems like you buy any writing that is Anti-Orthodox without checking its validity first, did you read the mentioned two without any prejudice? Here lets see what the text of those two says I will post sections of the Synod deliberation :
   A) Blachernae:
   “…, and to fall down the precipice of heresy and blasphemy.** The word “blasphemy” is used repeatedly by Gregory to describe Beccus’ doctrine concerning the procession of the Spirit.** To be sure, the deeply biblical nuance of the word in Scripture and in patristic literature did not escape him. In the New’ testament, the word indicates violation of the power and majesty of God (Mark 2:7; Luke 5:2 1).** In the early patristic period, opposing theological views were stigmatized as blasphemy**…”

“…We also render void their dangerous doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. We have been taught from God, the Word Himself, that the all-Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; and we confess that it has its existence from the Father, and that it prides itself — exactly as the Son Himself does — in the fact that the same Father] is essentially the cause of its being. And we know and believe that the Son is from the Father, being enriched in having the Father as His cause and natural principle, and in being consubstantial and of one nature with the Spirit, which is from the Father. Even so, He is not, either separately or with the Father, the cause of the Spirit; for the all-Holy Spirit’s existence is not “through the Son” and “from the Son” as they who hasten toward their destruction and separation from God understand and teach. Psalm 73:27 We shun and cut off from our communion those who do not correctly uphold the sound faith but blaspheme blatantly, and think and speak perversely Acts 20:30 and perpetuate what is most alarming and unbearable to hear.”

continued

 

[Ignatios]

Continued

1. To the same, who say that the Father is, through the Son, the cause of the Spirit, and who cannot conceive the Father as the cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit — giving it existence and being — except through the Son; thus according to them the Son is united to the Father as joint-cause and contributor to the Spirit’s existence. This, they say, is supported by the phrase of Saint John of Damascus, “the Father is the projector through the Son of the manifesting Spirit.” John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa, in Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos II, 36 (= PG 94.849B): “He Himself [the Father], then, is mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and, through the Word, projector of the manifesting Spirit.” This, however, can never mean what they say, inasmuch as it clearly denotes the manifestation — through the intermediary of the Son — of the Spirit, whose existence is from the Father. For the same John of Damascus would not have said — in the exact same chapter — that the only cause in the Trinity is God the Father, thus denying, by the use of the word “only,” the causative principle to the remaining two hypostases. John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa, in Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos II, 36 (= PG 94.849B) Nor would he have, again, said elsewhere, “and we speak, likewise, of the Holy Spirit as the ‘Spirit of the Son,’ yet we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son.” Ibid., 30 (= PG 94-832B). For both of these views to be true is impossible. To those who have not accepted the interpretation given to these testimonia by the Fathers, but, on the contrary, perceive them in a manner altogether forbidden by them, we pronounce the above recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.

And in the fourth anathema is where the fabricators took portion of this anathema and tries to make out of it as the Synod of Blachernae teaches the same as the RCC, the absurdity of such saying appears clearly before the eyes of anyone who even has half brain:

1. To the same, who affirm that the Paraclete, which is from the Frather, has its existence through the Son and from the Son, and who again propose as proof the phrase “the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son.” In certain texts [of the Fathers], the phrase denotes the Spirit’s shining forth and manifestation. Indeed, the very Paraclete shines form and is manifest eternally through the Son,(now this the phrase that those fabricators try to cut it off from the rest of the context so they can make a fabricate their distorted opinion but it becomes evident what they are saying if you keep it in context with the beginning of the this anathem and continue reading you will see that the opposite view of those fabricators that is evident ) in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’s rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us. It does not, however, mean that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that it receives its being through Him and from Him. For this would mean that the Spirit has the Son as cause and source (exactly as it has the Father), not to say that it has its cause and source more so from the Son than from the Father; for it is said that that from which existence is derived likewise is believed to enrich the source and to be the cause of being. To those who believe and say such things, we pronounce the above resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.
   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN I say.
   Now I think this enough for now, but trust me there is a lot more than this.
   Now off to St.Palamas:
   St. Gregory Palamas teaches this, the “. . . pre-eternal rejoicing of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit who, as I said, is common to both, which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy( manifestation in time). Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father.” [11] Thus, the Father alone gives existence to the hypostasis of the Spirit, and there can be no existential filioque.(emphasis are mine)

continued

 

[Ignatios]

Continued

St. Gregory Palamas explained:We do not say that the Son is from the Father in as much as He isbegotten by the divine essence, but rather in as much as He isbegotten by the Father as person. For the essence is common to the three persons, but begetting is proper to the Father personally. That is why the Son is not begotten by the Spirit. Consequently the Spirit is
also from the Father; He possesses the divine essence, proceeding
from the person of the Father. For the essence is always and
absolutely common to the three persons. Therefore the act of
spiration is proper to the Father as a person and the Spirit does not
proceed from the Son, for the Son does not have the personal
properties of the Father.

Both Traditional Eastern Orthodoxy (to which Eastern Catholicism has remained faithful)and the Latin Catholic Church taught -
(1) The distinction between ousia (i.e. essence/substance) and hypostasis;
(2) All the divine properties of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Mardukm, any one who ventured even artificially in those Theological issues (1) would know that the RCC and the Orthodox Church taught that there is a distinction between the Ousia and the Hypostasis, however the RCC seems that they had fallen into the error of confusing the two when they applied the filioque. As for the (2) it is permissible so long you are speaking in the sense of the Greek word “proeinai”-general sense speaking, and not as “Ekporeuesthai”, in which the RCC does not teach as such in the matter of the Filioque and NO, the RCC taught that the Holy Spirit proceed from both (from the FATHER and the SON=Filioque) :
"Catechism of the Catholic Church (the new, official catechism), 248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin [sic] of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father,” it affirms that he [sic] comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). "

Sorry for not being able to reply to the rest at this time (summer and kids and…), but I will for sure IF GOD is willing, soon.

GOD bless all †††

 

[Ignatios]

Brother Michael (Hesychios) is correct that on this point, there is a difference in the theology of Eastern Catholicism and the popular (not Traditional) theology of modern Eastern Orthodoxy The theology of Eastern Catholicism is faithful to the true Tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy on the matter of procession, while modern Eastern Orthodoxy (or at least a portion of it)

The only difference is in your “unique” mind, you must keep in your unique mind that the Dogma of the Orthodox Church is that the Holy Spirit proceed from the FATHER.

No Orthodox ever suggested the Procession of the Holy Spirit as the Latins, well I’ll take this one back, actually there was one, and Synod of Blachernae issued 12 Anathema against such wrong and strange opinion to the mind of the Holy Church of GOD.

The procession of the Holy Spirit “through the Son” it is to be taken “ONLY” as “proienai” and NOT AS Ekporeuesthai AND is only an explanatory way that “SOME” Orthodox used or a just a theological opinion but never with the Latin understanding, exactly as the Synod of Blachernae explained in the Anathema that they used against those who uses it as Ekporeuesthai but only a" proienai" in which it also lead to the manifestation in time:

again allow me to post it and highlighted for you as it was listed in the documents from the Blachernae:

“4. To the same, who affirm that the Paraclete, which is from the Frather, has its existence through the Son and from the Son, and who again propose as proof the phrase “the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son.” In certain texts [of the Fathers], the phrase denotes the Spirit’s shining forth and manifestation.* Indeed, the very Paraclete shines form and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’s rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us**. It does not, however, mean that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that it receives its being through Him and from Him. For this would mean that the Spirit has the Son as cause and source…”*

From early time concerning this theology, you can find both, among the first ones that venture deep into the procession were the Cappadocian fathers in particular St. Gregory the Theologian (300s) which the Orthodox Church uses great portion of his teaching because she recognized his writing and he is by far has the most Biblically grounded theology (along with Saint Basil but not Saint Gregory of Nyssa) , he never once referred to the “through the son ” (Ekporeuesthai):

“.“The one nature in the Three is God; but the union (ἕνωσις) is the Father, from whom the others proceed and to whom they refer, not so as to be confounded but rather to have all in common with Him, without distinction of time, will, or power.” St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 42; P.G. 36, col. 476B.”

“To us there is One God, for the Godhead is One, and all that proceedeth from Him is referred to One, though we believe in Three Persons. For one is not more and another less God; nor is One before and another after; nor are They divided in will or parted in power; nor can you find here any of the qualities of divisible things; but the Godhead is, to speak concisely, undivided in separate Persons; and there is one mingling of Light, as it were of three suns joined to each other. When then we look at the Godhead, or the First Cause, or the Monarchia, that which we conceive is One; but when we look at the Persons in Whom the Godhead dwells, and at Those Who timelessly and with equal glory have their Being from the First Cause—there are Three Whom we worship.” [Gregory the theologian fifth oration on the Holy Spirit]

And again He said that all things should be taught us by the Spirit when He should come to dwell amongst us.37393739 Ib. xiv. 26. Of these things one, I take it, was the Deity of the Spirit Himself, made clear later on when such knowledge should be seasonable and capable of being received after our Saviour’s restoration, [Gregory the theologian fifth oration on the Holy Spirit]

Let us use another for an example The Blessed Theodoret (late 300s early 400s):

Blessed Theodoret: “Concerning the Holy Spirit, it is said not that he has existence from the Son or through the Son, but rather that He proceeds from the Father and has the same nature as the Son, is in fact the Spirit of the Son as being One in Essence with Him” (Bl. Theodoret, “On the Third Ecumenical Council”

The “through the Son” is an expression and it doesn’t comprise a dogma of the Orthodox Church; it is a means that certain Holy Fathers used as an explanatory, in their teaching on the Holy Trinity, but the very meaning of the teaching of the Orthodox Church is different from that of Roman Catholicism.

 

[Ignatios]

continued

…has introduced a novelty into Trinitarian theology (with the idea that the procession of divine Energy from the Father through the Son to the Holy Spirit is merely termporal).

HUH??? Am I reading you correctly???”The Divine Energy”???... From the Father- through the Son-to the Holy Spirit???-is merely temporal ???
I must say that I lost you here I am not sure whether you had a couple of things in your head and you manifested them to us incorrectly or you haven’t got a clue what are you talking about, if not so please explain further, the subject is clarification about the Procession of the Holy Spirit through the SON whether it has been in the Orthodox Church from the beginning of the theology as manifestation to the world or not, however the original contention point which you have stirred away from, namely, your reply in post #53 in which you said the following sentence:” explicit teaching of the Catholic Church has always been ONE Procession from the Father through the Son.”

That’s a massive set of convoluted syllogisms, brother. I can’t pretend to even understand your “logic.” It is sufficient to point out that though you pretend that “through the Son” introduces time into eternity, you fail to take into account that the very language of “beget” and “procession” does the exact same thing. In fact, your “introducing time into eternity” argument is not new - it was the exact same argument that the Arians and Pneumatomachi used against the Catholic Church to deny the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. I suggest you read what the Fathers had to say about this ridiculous argument.

Most definitely, things like that is going to appear to you as such since you are grounded BUT not biblically in your “theology”, Mardukm, when speaking of the mystery of GOD one can only venture within the limit of what had been revealed to us, in which you lack to maintain in your *vivid *“theology” Saint Gregory the Theologian and Saint Basil both stress this point, “through the SON” *Ekporeuesthai * when speaking of Procession is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and that is why when the Orthodox fathers speaks of such term it is a general sense and not Ekporeuesthai, now, the language of “beget” and “Procession” are not the same as “through the SON”… simply because the words” Begets” and “ Proceed” were the words of The greatest THEOLOGIAN ever known, that is the Lord JESUS CHRIST those words were a revelation, and thus we are to take them as the base, foundation and the truth for our Theology without departing to some other sensless bases that it would contradict the Teaching of the Church as it was taught from the beginning by everybody and everywhere.

Again you are trying to set up a strawman by attaching to my mouth the Arians argument, let it be known to you that one become a heretic not by the way he conduct his argument but for what purpose he uses his argument, it is clear that the Orthodox side including myself are the ones who are defending the Teaching of the Orthodox faith from any new strange and wrong pitiful opinions, show me how am I defending Arianism in my argument and I will show you your ignorance.

Maybe, maybe not. But it was a lot more context than your own argument based merely on the terms “through” and “and.”

Blessings,
Marduk

No it wasn’t, I only responded to your text, which it was out of context as you appear to give a shy submission in your above reply.

 

[Vico]

Ignatios,

How about an abstract and index next time.

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios,

How about an abstract and index next time.

Vico, My apology, but I thought I did, could you point it out for me, please, GOD bless †††