Filioque - revisited

[mardukm]

Dear all,

I just wanted to add something to this comment I made from an earlier post:

In fact, I would have to argue that the Latin understanding perserves the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council much better than the Greek understanding. Why? Because the idea that the hypostasis of the Spirit originates from the Father in fact did little or nothing to suppress the Pneumatomachian heresies it was intended to refute. The Pneumatomachi had no problem with the Credal line "The Holy Spirit ekporeusai from the Father" because it did not refute - and possibly actually supported - their heretical belief that the Holy Spirit was a creature. If you read the Greek Fathers who combatted the Pneumatomachi, you will discover that their primary argument was not that the Holy Spirit hypostatically originates from the Father, but rather that the Holy Spirit, like the Son, was consubstantial with the Father. In light of that, not only does the Traditional Latin understanding of procedit actually preserve the original purpose of the early Fathers (both Greek and Latin), but it would seem that when the Fathers of the Second Ecum used the term ekporeusai, they actually intended to refer to the ousia instead of the hypostasis.

When St. Maximos defended the orthodoxy of the Latin use of filioque, he explicitly affirmed that when the Latins use the term procedit, they were using it in reference to ousia, not hypostasis.

Here is the revelant portion of St. Maximos Letter to Marinus:
“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria :dancing:], from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause 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 procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dcointin,

Could anyone provide quotations from Eastern fathers where they speak of the Spirit as proceeding from or through (or an equivalent word) the Son?

What I’m having trouble grasping (and thank you for bearing with me) is what procession means if it does not mean origination. I admit that it’s very difficult for me to think of it in different terms, and that’s where my confusion is coming from. If “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” is equivalent to “who share in the divine essence of the Father and the Son”, or to put it another way “who is consubstantial with the Father and the Son,” then not just say so?

If you look at all the arguments from every Father who defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit in the 4th century, you will notice that they don’t defend it by asserting the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, but rather by asserting the Holy Spirit’s consubstantiality with the Father (and Son).

You will notice that the same problem with a mere argument of hypostatic origination with respect to the Holy Spirit presented itself in the Christological debates. The Church taught that the Father begets the Son, but that was no bulwark against the heretics who denied the Son’s divinity. The Council of Constantinople had to add “one in Being with the Father” (among other texts) to the Creed of Nicea in order to assert and defend the teaching on the Divinity of the Son.

The Fathers of Constantinople no doubt realized the same problem occurred with respect to the Person of the Holy Spirit - many were doubting His Divinity. These Fathers had to add a statement regarding the ousia of the Son in order to defend the Son’s Divinity. Can we seriously expect that the Fathers did not defend the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in like manner? In light of the fact that the primary defense of all the Fathers in the 4th century of the Spirit’s divinity is His consubstantiality with the Father and Son (i.e., an assertion of His Divine Essence), the Council must have included a statement on the ousia of the Spirit somewhere in the Creed. These considerations make me seriously doubt whether the Fathers of Constantinople ever actually intended the addition “who ekporeusai from the Father” to refer only to hypostatic origination (as many Orthodox apologists like to present the case).

You ask, If “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” is equivalent to “who share in the divine essence of the Father and the Son”, or to put it another way “who is consubstantial with the Father and the Son,” then why not just say so?

I propose to you that this is what they actually did at the Second Ecumenical Council. I propose the addition of “who ekporeusai from the Father” was a statement not just on the hypostatic origination (since that would have been insufficient to combat the Pneumatomachi), but also of the Spirit’s sharing of the Divine Essence.

This puts the debate in a different, much better light, because this would mean not only that the Latins preserved the intent of the Second Ecumenical Council (to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit), but also that they were actually not far from the meaning of the text as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

You argue for correct language below. So let’s be fair. The Greek Tradition shouldn’t be using a translated word that does not perfectly mean ekporeusai…

When English-speaking Orthodox use procession, the signification of it is drawn not only from its etymology but from the dogmatic tradition of the Orthodox Church. The word is embraced but its meaning is made to correspond with the Orthodox teaching. The same is true of the English translations “person,” “will,” “energy” used in theological discourse.

You write here that procession is a different hypostatic activity, distinct from the hypostatic activity of Orgination. This makes two hypostatic activities. Which one activity does John indicate in John 15:26? Origination? Or, the flowing out that is suggested by procedit?

Actually, the Synod of Blarchanae and St. Palamas distinguished the hypostatic procession and the eternal energetic procession - ekporeusai in both senses.

Orthodox teach that the procession of the Holy Spirit is different from his eternal manifestation. I would have to see where St. Gregory Palamas uses the same word ekporeusai and how he uses it in each.

That’s a good argument, especially since procedere can theoretically accomodate that meaning. However, this ambiguity only seems possible in secular usage. Theologically, however, procedit in the Creed has never taken - and can never take - on the meaning of origination. When it does, it leads to the heresy of Double Procession.

Yes, as the Creed now stands in the Latin Church, such a meaning of procedit would indicate the heresy of Double Procession.

A problem I see is that the Orthodox and the Latin Catholics seem to be interpreting
John 15:26 differently. The Orthodox understand origination to be the procession here indicated, whereas the Latin Catholics understand this procession as eternal manifestation (and not origination).

In effect, I think your argument leads to what I stated before - asking the Latins to change their traditional theological understanding of procedit so they will be forced to remove filioque. There’s just something so wrong with that, don’t you think? It would be equivalent to Latins forcing Easterns to change their understanding of Original Sin so they will have no choice but to accept the dogma of the IC. In fact, no change in the Eastern understanding of Original Sin needs to occur for a proper understanding of the IC. In the same way, no change in the Latin understanding of procedit needs to occur for this issue to be resolved.

The Latin addition of the filioque would appear to rest on the presupposition that the procession expressed in the Creed does not indicate origination. I know, however, that the Orthodox very much understand this creedal statement on the Holy Spirit as referring to origination, just as earlier in the Creed the origination of the Son is treated. Based on what I have been reading from you, it would seem that Catholics interpret the creedal statement (as it stands in the Greek) as referring to what Orthodox would call eternal manifestation.

[one sec, Jehovah’s Witnesses at my door]

Agreed. But the original for the Latin Church is the Latin text. And the cultural context we are speaking about is the Latin Church, not the Greek Church.

At the time the Creed was established, the cultural context of the Latin Church was still much influenced by that Greek. As example, St. Augustine states that the Septuagint is the translation of the Church, although translations from it into Latin are used by the Latin Church. The controversies fought against in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed arose and were defeated in the East.

**In fact, I would have to argue that the Latin understanding perserves the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council much better than the Greek understanding…

**/quote]
The heretics also spoke of an intermediary “energy” by which the Son and Holy Spirit were produced. St. Gregory of Nyssa fights against this in his Against Eunomius.

The tendency of the heretics was to separate the Holy Spirit in dignity and glory from the Father and the Son. St. Basil and St. Gregory go to great lengths to show from Scripture titles and descriptions that the Holy Spirit is of equal glory to the Father and the Son and is not to be conceived as separate from them. Of course their emphasis is to demonstrate the consubstantial nature of the Holy Spirit, as that was denied by the heretics. Yet, they never lose sight of the monarchy, even as the monarchy was taken to the extreme by their adversaries.

I’m not sure about the ekporeusai referring to the ousia instead of the hypostasis. The section on the Holy Spirit follows a similar pattern to that of the Son: the Holy Spirit is called Lord, just as Jesus Christ is Lord; the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, just as the Son as the Son of God has his pre-eternal origin in the Father; the Holy Spirit perfectly shares in the worship of the Father and the Son, just as the Son is the perfect image of the Father (and is consubstantial with him), and receives the same worship given the Father.

 

[Madaglan]

Dear all,

I just wanted to add something to this comment I made from an earlier post:

When St. Maximos defended the orthodoxy of the Latin use of filioque, he explicitly affirmed that when the Latins use the term procedit, they were using it in reference to ousia, not hypostasis.

Here is the revelant portion of St. Maximos Letter to Marinus:
“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria :dancing:], from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause 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 procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….”

Blessings,
Marduk

St. Maximus seems to be indicating that the Latins know the difference between the procession of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit’s eternal manifestation through the Son.

I do not see St. Maximus here stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the ousia. He rather seems to indicate that the eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son reveals the unity and identity of the essence.

 

[dcointin]

Mardukm,

Do I understand you correctly that the Filioque version of the Nicene Creed is confessing that the Spirit proceeds from the hypostasis (person) of the Father and the ousia (essence) of the Father and the Son?

 

[Madaglan]

The Council of Constantinople had to add “one in Being with the Father” (among other texts) to the Creed of Nicea in order to assert and defend the teaching on the Divinity of the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

I thought this already was in the original Creed of Nicaea…

Begotten of the Father “before all ages” was added, but I thought the part about the Son being homoousios (“one in being”) with the Father already was present in the 325 version.

 

[JohnVIII]

Brother [user]mardukm[/user]:

I just want to thank you so much for you posts, especially these last ones explaining from the Greek and the Latin about the possession of the Holy Spirit! It has been very enlightening for me indeed! I am taking notes.

…and also of Cyril of Alexandria :dancing:] …

I also get your implication by the dancing smiley . I have made augments in my past against the filioque based on how I thought it could not be so from a miaphysite point of view. St Cyril of Alexandria is big stuff for us miaphysite’s, and I even get a little excited too seeing St Maximus defending orthodoxy, including the filioque, and then bringing St Cyril in support of it!

Good show my friend!

:clapping:

JohnVIII

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

Brother [user]mardukm[/user]:

I just want to thank you so much for you posts, especially these last ones explaining from the Greek and the Latin about the possession of the Holy Spirit! It has been very enlightening for me indeed! I am taking notes.

I also get your implication by the dancing smiley . I have made augments in my past against the filioque based on how I thought it could not be so from a miaphysite point of view. St Cyril of Alexandria is big stuff for us miaphysite’s, and I even get a little excited too seeing St Maximus defending orthodoxy, including the filioque, and then bringing St Cyril in support of it!

Good show my friend!

:clapping:

JohnVIII

Thank you for the kind words. I don’t often respond to complements, since I never feel I deserve them, but from one miaphysite to another, I’ll accept this one.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

I thought this already was in the original Creed of Nicaea…

Begotten of the Father “before all ages” was added, but I thought the part about the Son being homoousios (“one in being”) with the Father already was present in the 325 version.

Yes and no. There were four versions of the Nicene Creed floating around after Nicea, and some did not have “one Being with the Father.” It was the Council of Constantinople that made it definitive.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

Brother [user]mardukm[/user]:

I just want to thank you so much for you posts, especially these last ones explaining from the Greek and the Latin about the possession of the Holy Spirit! It has been very enlightening for me indeed! I am taking notes.

I also get your implication by the dancing smiley . I have made augments in my past against the filioque based on how I thought it could not be so from a miaphysite point of view. St Cyril of Alexandria is big stuff for us miaphysite’s, and I even get a little excited too seeing St Maximus defending orthodoxy, including the filioque, and then bringing St Cyril in support of it!

Good show my friend!

:clapping:

I would also call your attention to the following statement, which defends our unity with our Latin brethren:

“He [the Son]**, according to you [Arians], of what is He **[the Son] partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself partakes from the Son…Therefore, it is the Father that He [the Son] partakes. But this which is partaken, what is it or whence? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him, and no longer can He be called Son of the Father…It follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the Essence of the Father.”

Brother Adrian, this is the exact theology of filioque coming from none other than Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria (First Discourse Against the Arians, Chap. 5).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dcointin,

Mardukm,

Do I understand you correctly that the Filioque version of the Nicene Creed is confessing that the Spirit proceeds from the hypostasis (person) of the Father

NO, in the sense that this has never been the issue between the East and West. In other words, it’s not about whether the Origination/Procession is from the Person of the Father. Rather, it’s about whether the Person (hypostasis) of the Spirit, on the one hand, or the Essence (ousia) of the Spirit, on the other, is the subject of the Origination/Procession.

What I’m saying is that while the Greek Creed by the word ekporeusai intends that the Person and Essence of the Spirit is from the Father, the Latin Creed by the word procedit intends only that the Essence of the Spirit is from the Father and Son.

Apologetics (not to mention the polemics) from both sides have normally and overly stressed the distinction between Person and Essence. The Orthodox side argues that the Credal line at issue is a statement on the origin of only the hypostasis (Person) of the Spirit, thus making the gap between the Latin focus on the Essence much bigger than necessary. But if the Fathers of the Second Ecum actually intended the addition “ekporeusai from the Father” as a statement on both the Person and Essence of the Spirit, that narrows the theological gap by a considerable degree.

the Spirit proceeds from the ousia (essence) of the Father and the Son?

YES, with the inherent condition that the Essence of the Son is from the Father. Hence, though the Essence of the Spirit is from Father and Son, the Father remains the Arche nonetheless.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

St. Maximus seems to be indicating that the Latins know the difference between the procession of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit’s eternal manifestation through the Son.

Yes, and the other thing he is saying is that what the Latins intend by their profession is not a statement on the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit (or Procession in your understanding), but rather is a statement on the eternal manifestation through the Son (in other words, the sharing of the Divine Essence from the Father and/through the Son)

I do not see St. Maximus here stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the ousia. He rather seems to indicate that the eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son reveals the unity and identity of the essence.

Agreed. The issue, as explained to brother dcointin, is not whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the hypostasis or ousia of the Father, but rather whether it is the hypostasis or the ousia of the Spirit that is the subject of “proceeding.”

Blessings

P.S. I’ll have to respond to your longer post later.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Madaglan,

When English-speaking Orthodox use procession, the signification of it is drawn not only from its etymology but from the dogmatic tradition of the Orthodox Church. The word is embraced but its meaning is made to correspond with the Orthodox teaching. The same is true of the English translations “person,” “will,” “energy” used in theological discourse.

Yes. My main point is that if the Orthodox insist on using a Latin-derived word to translate a Greek word, they should at least concede to recognize the original Latin theological meaning as well.

You write here that procession is a different hypostatic activity, distinct from the hypostatic activity of Orgination. This makes two hypostatic activities. Which one activity does John indicate in John 15:26? Origination? Or, the flowing out that is suggested by procedit?
I’m of the opinion that John 15:26 refers to both. To be more concise, originates (ekporeusai) contains within it the connotation of proceeds (procedit)

Orthodox teach that the procession of the Holy Spirit is different from his eternal manifestation. I would have to see where St. Gregory Palamas uses the same word ekporeusai

and how he uses it in each.
Cool. I know I’ve read it, but I’d be interested in your take. Btw, I really do appreciate your use of the term “eternal manifestation.” Every EO apologist I’ve discussed this topic with so far insist that the manifestation through the Son is only temporal.

A problem I see is that the Orthodox and the Latin Catholics seem to be interpreting John 15:26 differently. The Orthodox understand origination to be the procession here indicated, whereas the Latin Catholics understand this procession as eternal manifestation (and not

origination).
On principle, if the different interpretations lead to the same orthodox Truth, is there really anything wrong with that? What I’m saying is that the Second Ecum Council appealed to John 15:26 to assert nothing more nor less than the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. I have to ask (and please respond) - does the Latin interpretation diminish or contradict what the Second Ecum intended to teach in any way?

The Latin addition of the filioque

would appear to rest on the presupposition that the procession expressed in the Creed does not indicate origination. I know, however, that the Orthodox very much understand this creedal statement on the Holy Spirit as referring to origination, just as earlier in the Creed the origination of the Son is treated.
I know. And that’s where I feel the problem is. I don’t believe the Second Ecum Council added “ekporeusai from the Father” as only a statement on the Spirit’s origin - for the plain fact that such a purpose would not have refuted the Pneumatomachi in any way, and the addition was inteded to refute the Pneumatomachi. The statement must have meant something more to the Fathers of the Second Ecum if it was intended to combat the Pneumatomachian denial of the Spirit’s divinity. The Fathers must have understood that statement in a greater sense than just the hypostatic origin of the Spirit. They must have understood it also in the sense that the Latins understand it - as a statement on the Spirit’s sharing of the Divine Essence.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Based on what I have been reading from you, it would seem that Catholics interpret the creedal statement (as it stands in the Greek) as referring to what Orthodox would call eternal manifestation.

There is a nuance that needs to be pointed out. To the Greeks, the Credal statement (and the scriptural text on which it is based) refers to the Spirit’s relation to the Father AS PERSON (hypostasis) (i.e., what makes the Spirit “the Spirit” comes from the Father). To the Latins, the Credal statement (and the scriptural text on which it is based) refers to the Spirit’s relation to the Father AS GOD (ousia) (i.e., what makes the Spirit “God” comes from the Father). (I have to ask, do you think that Latin understanding is heretical or erroneous for some reason?)

To the Latins, one cannot divorce the Spirit’s Person (hypostasis) from His identity as God (ousia) - in other words, though they are distinct, one can’t divorce His Person from His Divinity ontologically. To the Greeks, they would agree that the hypostasis can’t be divorced from the ousia ontologically, but they make an added ontological distinction between ousia and energeia (Essence and Energy). Greeks say that divinity itself is energeia, and admit that this Energy is received by the Spirit from the Son (or eqiuvalently, from the Father through the Son). This was the argument of St. Gregory Palamas - that it is valid to say the eternal energetic procession (or, equivalently, the eternal manifestation) is from the Son, though it is heretical to say that the hypostatic procession is from the Son. I daresay that we can use this as a basis for reunion. Because on the level of the sharing of Divinity, the Latins and Greeks can agree that it is “from the Son,” and this is all that the Latins ever intended.

NOTE: There is a remaining distinction - the Latins would say “Divinity is the Essence of God,” while the Greeks would say “Divinity is an Energy of God.” But I don’t believe that would justify continued separation on the matter. (As an Oriental, I would agree with the Latins, especially based on the teaching of Popes St. Cyril and St. Athanasius, who I quoted above).

Comments?

[one sec, Jehovah’s Witnesses at my door]

At the time the Creed was established, the cultural context of the Latin Church was still much influenced by that Greek. As example, St. Augustine states that the Septuagint is the translation of the Church, although translations from it into Latin are used by the Latin Church. The controversies fought against in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed arose and were defeated in the East.

I was referring to the language.

In fact, I would have to argue that the Latin understanding perserves the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council much better than the Greek understanding…

The heretics also spoke of an intermediary “energy” by which the Son and Holy Spirit were produced. St. Gregory of Nyssa fights against this in his Against Eunomius.

The tendency of the heretics was to separate the Holy Spirit in dignity and glory from the Father and the Son. St. Basil and St. Gregory go to great lengths to show from Scripture titles and descriptions that the Holy Spirit is of equal glory to the Father and the Son and is not to be conceived as separate from them. Of course their emphasis is to demonstrate the consubstantial nature of the Holy Spirit, as that was denied by the heretics. Yet, they never lose sight of the monarchy, even as the monarchy was taken to the extreme by their adversaries.

And neither did the Latins ever lose sight of it. But to understand that, one must first understand what the Latins mean on their own terms, instead of trying to impose the Greek understanding onto the Latins and then forcing them to admit something that was never their intention in the first place. I’m not saying you are doing this, but wouldn’t you agree?

I’m not sure about the ekporeusai referring to the ousia instead of the hypostasis.

:banghead:Sorry about that. I spend all this time lobbying that hypostasis and ousia should not be dichotomized so sharply in the debates, and here I go using the phrase “instead of.” Sorry, again. My bad. I agree with you. I just didn’t express myself too well.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexius]

From what I’ve read, the Anglicans and EO have had talks on the issue, and the Anglicans don’t seem willing to remove filioque - at least not according to the terms insisted upon by the EO. The Lutherans are more amenable, but are not united on the matter. I don’t know about the other Protestant confessional bodies.

CONTINUED

I just recalled that during the discussions between Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople and the Lutheran scholars of Tubingen during the 16th century, the filioque was a major dividing issue and one that prevented any chance of union or further dialog. The Lutheran scholars insisted on retaining it as they viewed it as patristically and soundly orthodox while the Patriarch insisted on it being unorthodox in use and meaning.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[mardukm]

I just recalled that during the discussions between Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople and the Lutheran scholars of Tubingen during the 16th century, the filioque was a major dividing issue and one that prevented any chance of union or further dialog. The Lutheran scholars insisted on retaining it as they viewed it as patristically and soundly orthodox while the Patriarch insisted on it being unorthodox in use and meaning.

Enlightening. Thank you.

Blessings

 

[JohnVIII]

I just recalled that during the discussions between Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople and the Lutheran scholars of Tubingen during the 16th century, the filioque was a major dividing issue and one that prevented any chance of union or further dialog. The Lutheran scholars insisted on retaining it as they viewed it as patristically and soundly orthodox while the Patriarch insisted on it being unorthodox in use and meaning.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

“the filioque was a major dividing issue and one that prevented any chance of union”.

Maybe I’m just too old fashion but I have always thought that the Creed is supposed to be something that the whole Church can express there unity. If this is so it just seems like a counter-diction to embrace change in the Creed as a step in the direction of union. …But this is my problem, I’ll get over it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

“the filioque was a major dividing issue and one that prevented any chance of union”.

Maybe I’m just too old fashion but I have always thought that the Creed is supposed to be something that the whole Church can express there unity. If this is so it just seems like a counter-diction to embrace change in the Creed as a step in the direction of union. …But this is my problem, I’ll get over it.

According to brother Alexius’ account, the issue between the Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox was theological (i.e., a matter of orthodoxy). It seems to me our efforts must be geared towards theological understanding first, instead of textual uniformity. I mean, what use is it to remove filioque if there is no theological understanding between East and West? What use is an appearance of unity, if there is no actual unity in mind, heart, and spirit?

Blessings

 

[dcointin]

Dear brother Adrian,

According to brother Alexius’ account, the issue between the Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox was theological (i.e., a matter of orthodoxy). It seems to me our efforts must be geared towards theological understanding first, instead of textual uniformity. I mean, what use is it to remove filioque if there is no theological understanding between East and West? What use is an appearance of unity, if there is no actual unity in mind, heart, and spirit?

Blessings

As a former Lutheran who studied these exchanges, I can verify Alexius’s statement that the issues between the Lutherans and Orthodox were theological, including a major disagreement on the Filioque. Lutherans have never questioned the Filioque, and consider it a standard part of orthodox Trinitarian theology.

 

[dcointin]

I’ve heard the term “eternal manifestation” mentioned several times in this thread. Could anyone explain what that means and how it differs from eternal origination, and eternal procession?