Filioque & the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Nicea

[Bithynian]

I did some further research to clear up a few things.

(1) The phrase ‘through the Son’ (διὰ υἱοῦ dia huiou) in the ‘Profession of Faith’ (as cited in the Catholics Answers tract) is found in Act III of Nicaea II (not Act VII as I had thought). Act III is not a profession of any particular creed, but an epistle from Tarasios (Patriarch of Constantinople) in which he personally professes a variety of different theological propositions. There is no variance between the Greek and Latin manuscripts.

(2) The controversy at the Council of Florence is not related to ‘through the Son’ in Act III of Nicaea II. It is related to the manuscript differences in Act VII where the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is recited. The manuscripts which are extant do not include καὶ υἱοῦ kai huiou (and the Son) in the Greek, but do include Filioque in the Latin. The Latin Fathers at Florence apparently produced an ancient Greek codex of Nicaea II in which καὶ υἱοῦ was present in the Creed (this manuscript is no longer extant).

For my future sanity in case I need to find Tarasius’ profession in Act III of Nicaea II again: Labbe, vol. 8, col. 811. Unfortunately the only digitised version of Mansi vol. 12 is the monumentally useless edition at Gallica, which is incredibly laggy and takes an eternity to load anything.

 

[Vico]

…
The reference given to us is from the Mansi collection in (Mansi, XII, 1122 D)"

Lastly the papal legates were most definitely at the council.

The legates left the council in the original location of Constantinople, but Empress Irene recalled them to the new location in Nicaea, which I did not see at first. There were then seven sessions in Nicaea and an eighth in Constantinople. So presiding Patriarch Tarasius who informed Pope Hadrian I. There was a first and second translation to Latin made.

However, Greek version of the Symbol of Faith does not include the phrase equivalent to the filioque, even in Rome.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

…
The reference given to us is from the Mansi collection in (Mansi, XII, 1122 D)"

Lastly the papal legates were most definitely at the council.

The legates left the council in the original location of Constantinople, but Empress Irene recalled them to the new location in Nicaea, which I did not see at first. There were then seven sessions in Nicaea and an eighth in Constantinople. So presiding Patriarch Tarasius who informed Pope Hadrian I. There was a first and second translation to Latin made.

However, Greek version of the Symbol of Faith does not include the phrase equivalent to the filioque, even in Rome.

You’re not listening. The reference to the filioque referenced in Catholic Answers is the profession of faith of St Tarasius of Constantinople which both sets of acts have.

As for the creed, it was mentioned earlier the issue is that the Greek and Latin manuscripts for Nicaea II diverge. Lastly this divergence occurred within the Greek codices at the council of Florence. The older codex (written on parchment) had it while the newer ones didn’t. The latins produced it at the council and the Greeks claimed it was forged despite the fact that this codex came from Constantinople after Nicholas of Cusa brought it from there. We will never know the truth I guess as the older codex doesn’t exist anymore.

The same issue happened with St Basils tract against Eunomius where the older Greek manuscripts (Brought also from Constantinople) had the Filioque passages where as the newer Greek ones didn’t. Bessarion, the bishop of Nicaea, went back to Constantinople after the council and examined the newer vs the older manuscripts and found the Latin testimony to be true in that all the older manuscripts had the Filioque passage while the newer ones didn’t. He also noted some blatant editing:

• In one case the copyist spilt ink over the passage containing the Filioque
• in another case the passage was erased out with blade and written over but this was done so poorly that he could still see the Filioque passage underneath the new writing over it.

There was a lot of editing that went on in the eastern half of Christiandom. Pope Leo the great famously complained that the Greeks had altered his epistle Flavian and that they also corrupted the council of Chalcedon and that the Latin acts were more reliable than the Greek ones because of this. Pope Nicholas I famously said in his epistle to the Emperor Michael (referring to the Letter of Pope Hadrian):

“It is still intact, exactly as it was originally sent by the Apostolic see in the hands of the Constantinopolitan clergy, if however it has not been tampered with as is according to the Greeks habit”

St Robert Bellarmine made similar charges about editing of the ecumenical councils by the Greeks and has a work on it. Nevermind the insertion of a 14th century forged Letter of Pope John VIII inserted in the acts of the council of Constantinople 879-880 by the Greeks.

I’m just saying that just becuase something happened in Greek doesn’t mean the Greek account is reliable.

 

[Vico]

…

I am listening. As you stated “We will never know the truth I guess as the older codex doesn’t exist anymore.” To make the creed work in Latin and Greek would need ex Patre per Filium procedentem.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

…

I am listening. As you stated “We will never know the truth I guess as the older codex doesn’t exist anymore.” To make the creed work in Latin and Greek would need ex Patre per Filium procedentem.

Depends on the method of translation (literal or translating the sense). In the Latin tradition “through the Son” and “and the Son” mean the same thing and it wouldn’t be surprising if it got translated as Filioque instead of per filium. Secondly the Greek codex as mentioned had “and the son” which is not contradictory so far as it’s understood as equivalent to through the Son. Remember at the Council of Lyons II the Greek creed was sung with Filioque

 

[Vico]

… Depends on the method of translation (literal or translating the sense). In the Latin tradition “through the Son” and “and the Son” mean the same thing and it wouldn’t be surprising if it got translated as Filioque instead of per filium. Secondly the Greek codex as mentioned had “and the son” which is not contradictory so far as it’s understood as equivalent to through the Son. Remember at the Council of Lyons II the Greek creed was sung with Filioque

You mean the Greek codex you referred to? here: “We will never know the truth I guess as the older codex doesn’t exist anymore.”

I do not remember Lyons II mentioned in this discussion, but it was well after the schism, and the statement testifies that many did not accept the filioque, and we know that it was repudiated after. Anyway it does not refer to Nicea II.

From Denzinger (old numbering) from Lyons II:

460 In faithful and devout profession we declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two beginnings, but from one beginning, not from two breathings but from one breathing. The most holy Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all the faithful, has up to this time professed, preached, and taught this; this she firmly holds, preaches, declares, and teaches; the unchangeable and true opinion of the orthodox Fathers and Doctors, Latin as well as Greek, holds this. But because some through ignorance of the irresistible aforesaid truth have slipped into various errors, we in our desire to close the way to errors of this kind, with the approval of the sacred Council, condemn and reject (those) who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son; as well as (those) who with rash boldness presume to declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two beginnings, and not as from one.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

… Depends on the method of translation (literal or translating the sense). In the Latin tradition “through the Son” and “and the Son” mean the same thing and it wouldn’t be surprising if it got translated as Filioque instead of per filium. Secondly the Greek codex as mentioned had “and the son” which is not contradictory so far as it’s understood as equivalent to through the Son. Remember at the Council of Lyons II the Greek creed was sung with Filioque

You mean the Greek codex you referred to? here: “We will never know the truth I guess as the older codex doesn’t exist anymore.”

Yes as in we can’t inspect ourselves to determine its age. However it’s a fact that it was demonstrated and brought to Florence and the Greeks themselves inspected it and confirmed it contained the Filioque. This is fact mentioned in both the acts of both Syropoulos and Bessarion.

I do not remember Lyons II mentioned in this discussion, but it was well after the schism, and the statement testifies that many did not accept the filioque, and we know that it was repudiated after. Anyway it does not refer to Nicea II.

I never said it did. I brought up Lyons II to show that the Greek creed can be said with filioque if a particular understanding is held as after the decree of Union was made between the Greeks and the Latins the creed was sung at mass in both Latin and Greek with the Filioque so “per filium” is not the only way Greek and Latin could contain filioque

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Wandile:

… Depends on the method of translation (literal or translating the sense). In the Latin tradition “through the Son” and “and the Son” mean the same thing and it wouldn’t be surprising if it got translated as Filioque instead of per filium. Secondly the Greek codex as mentioned had “and the son” which is not contradictory so far as it’s understood as equivalent to through the Son. Remember at the Council of Lyons II the Greek creed was sung with Filioque

You mean the Greek codex you referred to? here: “We will never know the truth I guess as the older codex doesn’t exist anymore.”

Yes as in we can’t inspect ourselves to determine its age. However it’s a fact that it was demonstrated and brought to Florence and the Greeks themselves inspected it and confirmed it contained the Filioque. This is fact mentioned in both the acts of both Syropoulos and Bessarion.

I do not remember Lyons II mentioned in this discussion, but it was well after the schism, and the statement testifies that many did not accept the filioque, and we know that it was repudiated after. Anyway it does not refer to Nicea II.

I never said it did. I brought up Lyons II to show that the Greek creed can be said with filioque if a particular understanding is held as after the decree of Union was made between the Greeks and the Latins the creed was sung at mass in both Latin and Greek with the Filioque so “per filium” is not the only way Greek and Latin could contain filioque

Even so, the Antiochian school is different that the Alexandrian school, and there was never unity of belief at least since Patriarch Photius of Constantinople (born after Niceae II). The specific wording of the section on the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed was chosen by St Gregory of Nyssa to oppose Macedonius (the Pneumatomachi) that denied the Godhood of the Holy Spirit. At the Union of Brest (1595 A.D.) this was stated in article 1:

Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another – we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

 

[Wandile]

Constantinople and the Greeks don’t take their theology from Antioch but from the Capoadocians. Secondly St Gregory of Nyssa in refuting the Macedonians actually enumerates the Filioque :

“ It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches( and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame , what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?"
Against Macedonians,6(A.D. 377),in NPNF2,V:317“

Secondly Photius was point blank wrong on the Filioque as he though no church father taught it when in fact he was corrected and shown that the western fathers thought it.

Lastly the article of the Union of Brest is complementary to filioque as in the Latin tradition the western fathers all use “and” and “through” interchangeably. That is it is understood that the the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son. This is equivalent to saying from the father and the son as the western tradition understands the procession from the Son to be mediate not immediate/principally.

 

[Vico]

Constantinople and the Greeks don’t take their theology from Antioch but from the Capoadocians. Secondly St Gregory of Nyssa in refuting the Macedonians actually enumerates the Filioque :

“ It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches( and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame , what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?"
Against Macedonians,6(A.D. 377),in NPNF2,V:317“

Secondly Photius was point blank wrong on the Filioque as he though no church father taught it when in fact he was corrected and shown that the western fathers thought it.

Lastly the article of the Union of Brest is complementary to filioque as in the Latin tradition the western fathers all use “and” and “through” interchangeably. …

School of Alexandria (till 381 A.D.)

Athenagoras
Clement
Didymus
Origen
St. Athanatius of Alexandria

School of Antioch (170 A.D start)

Theophilus of Antioch
Eusebius of Emesa
Aracius of Caesarea
Thedore of Heraklea
Diodorus of Tarsus
St. John Chrysostom (Patriarch of Constantinople)
Theodorus of Mopsuestia
Basil of Seleucia
Gennadius of Constantinople (Patriarch of Constantinople)

Saint Gregory of Nyssa – refers there to oikonomia rather than ontology. There is no scripture that relates the ontology of the Holy Spirit only the oikonomia. (See St Gregory of Nyssa On the Holy Spirit)

We confess that, save His being contemplated as with peculiar attributes in regard of Person, the Holy Spirit is indeed from God, and of the Christ, according to Scripture, but that, while not to be confounded with the Father in being never originated, nor with the Son in being the Only-begotten, and while to be regarded separately in certain distinctive properties, He has in all else, as I have just said, an exact identity with them.
St Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit - Full text, in English - 1

The Monarchy of the Father is spoken of in the Catechism:

248 … the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit …

Yes, the Union of Brest if favorable, but notes the disagreement.

 

[Wandile]

School of Alexandria (till 381 A.D.)

…
Origen
St. Athanatius of Alexandria

I don’t understand why you’re mentioning the prominent members of the school of Alexandria? Nevermind that Origen’s theology was condemned at Constantinople II. Also the school of Alexandria was literally a theological school like a university. I just don’t see the relevance of this.

School of Antioch (170 A.D start)
Theophilus of Antioch…
St. John Chrysostom (Patriarch of Constantinople)
Theodorus of Mopsuestia
Basil of Seleucia
Gennadius of Constantinople (Patriarch of Constantinople)

Again I don’t see why you’re mentioning the prominent members of this theological school. It was also a university of theology. Theodore of Mopsuestia was condemned by the 6th council (Constantinople III) For Nestorianism. Lastly it’s well know some patriarchs of Constantinople were antiochans like St John Chrysostom. Again I don’t see how this is relevant to my previous post.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa – refers there to oikonomia rather than ontology. There is no scripture that relates the ontology of the Holy Spirit only the oikonomia. (See St Gregory of Nyssa On the Holy Spirit)

This is just simply not correct. The Macedonians were making an ontological objection regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He responds making an ontological argument using the analogy of flames to show how the first flame (The Father) lights the second Flame (The Son) and this gives the second flame the essence of the first. He proceeds to show how the second flame (The Son) lights the third flame (The Holy Spirit) of which from the first (Father) through the second flame (The Son), the the third flame (The Hoy Spirit) received the same essence. Thus proving the divinity of the Holy Spirit. If his argument only related to the economy of salvation then it would do nothing the to refute the Macedonian objections.

Secondly the quote provided only speaks of personal prosperities vs consubstantial essence and is saying that though the Holy Spirit is a distinct person in that he is not unorginate like the Father nor only begotten like the Son, he indeed is one in essence with them. This has nothing to do with the economy of salvation.

Lastly the scriptures of the Holy Trinity in the economy of salvation, in the Latin view, are images of the ontological reality of the Holy Trinity so saying there are no such scripture on ontology is just false. Lastly Revelation 22:1 is literally ontological and teaches filioque using the Greek verb Ekupromenon:

“ Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb”

The Monarchy of the Father is spoken of in the Catechism

Where did I deny the monarchy of the Father?? I literally said the Holy Spitit proceeds principally/properly/immediately from the Father

Yes, the Union of Brest if favorable, but notes the disagreement.

It’s notes that disagreement is fictional and only exists for:

no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another

 

[Vico]

…

I posted the schools to refute your statement that Constantinople did not use the School of Antioch.

I first mentioned the two schools because the Latin theology is like the Alexandrian on the filioque – inclined to the formula through the Son ( dia tou Hiou , per Filium ) as opposed to the School of Antioch (and the Greeks).

Revelation 22:1 makes sense as economy not ontology. The scriptural examples are economy and the ontology first occurred in the church councils. It is only by analogy the economy is applied to ontology and “the analogy of flames” is based upon economy which is expressed in scripture.

The economy (the work in the world) of the Son and the Holy Spirit are the two hands of the Father per Ireneaus. The council of 381 A.D. first affirmed the Holy Spirit divinity in the change made to the Symbol of Faith that later was accepted by Rome in 451 A.D. at the Council of Chalcedon.

It is a fact that there was real difference regarding the different teachings of the eternal procession of the Holy Sprit, and is why it was mentioned in the Brest document. Here they agreed to give disagreement up, but were not compelled to change the liturgy (which did not use filioque).

I did not say or imply that you denied the Monarchy of the Father. Don’t take it personally. The clarity of the Monarchy of the Father is why the Orthodox like the original Symbol of Faith.

 

[Wandile]

I posted the schools…

This is still wrong. Just because they use one or two antiochans or Alexandrians does not mean they used the other schools. Greek theology is sourced from the Capoadocians, not the Antiochan nor the Alexandrian school.

I first mentioned the two schools because the Latin theology is like the Alexandrian on the filioque – inclined to the formula through the Son ( dia tou Hiou , per Filium ) as opposed to the School of Antioch (and the Greeks).

The Antiochans hardly every comment on the issue so it’s quite false to say they have any inclination towards one or the other view. Historically antiochan churches have been favourable to filioque when presented to them by the Latins.

Revelation 22:1 makes sense as economy not ontology.

Actually this an error. This is not the economy of salvation but an image of the trinity in eternity as St Ambrose uses this verse to prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit :

“ And this, again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the throne of [God]. For you read the words of the Evangelist John to this purport: And He showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of [God] and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, and on either side, was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of all nations. [Revelation 22:1-2]

154. This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of [God], that is, the [Holy Spirit]…“

The economy…

This is all quite irrelevant as I literally said the economy of salvation mirrors the ontological life of God.

It is a fact that there was real difference regarding the different teachings of the eternal procession of the Holy Sprit

There wasn’t any difference between the Latin and Greek fathers. Greek unionists came to understand this like Bekkos, Besarion etc. Even modern Eastern Orthodox writers like Kalistos Ware hold no difference between East and west on this issue.

The east mistakenly thought the Latin church taught two sources of the Holy Spirit which is why both Lyons II and Florence emphasize the single spiration of the Holy Spirit (As two sources amounts to two spirations and harms the monarchy of the Father) and the equality of “through” and “and”. That’s why Brest even acknowledges that the schism on this matter only exists because of the refusal to not understand one another.

They Byzantines did not give it up in the Union of Brest but rather simply admited the constant greek teaching of the Holy Spirit substantially proceeding from the Father through the Son (St Terasius at the 7th council, St Maximus the confessor, St Epiphinaius, St John of Damascus, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Gregory of Nyssa etc) or in their own words:

“not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.”

I did not say…

That’s only because they don’t understand filioque. It’s very clear if understood correctly.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “Greek theology is sourced from the Capoadocians, not the Antiochan nor the Alexandrian school.”
A. There were two major centers of the study in third to mid seventh centuries – during which they lived. There were Cappadocians that introduced terminology that was rejected. It was not a major school. See the source, Christology, A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus, by Gerald O’Collins, SJ, p. 188:

Differences between what have been called the ‘schools’ of Antioch and Alexandria set the state for the Christological controversies of the fifth century and beyond. … From the late fourth century, as heirs of the teaching from Nicaea I and Constantinople I, the two schools faced a common challenge.

And p. 186:

Building on Origen, the Cappadocians, and Athanasius, Constantinople I put the trinitarian language firmly in place: three hypostaseis or prosopa and one ousia or physis in God.

Cappadocian Fathers:

• Saint Gregory I of Nazianzus, the Theologian, studied in School of Alexandria. lived 329-390 A.D. (Patriarch of Constantinople and Great Hierarch)
• Saint Basil the Great studied in Constantinople. lived 329-379 A.D.
• Saint Gregory of Nyssa was taught by Basil. lived 335-395 A.D. (Great Hierarch)

And:
Saint John Chrysostom studied under Diodore of Tarsus and re-founded the School of Antioch. lived 347-404 A.D. (Patriarch of Constantinople and Great Hierarch)

You wrote: “That’s only because they don’t understand filioque. It’s very clear if understood correctly.”
A. That original simple expression in the Symbol of Faith does not require one to understand the “and the Son”.

There is a real quarrel because “do not wish to understand one another”, but yes using through which is why I wrote that before rather than and as used by the Latin Church:

Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

You wrote: “This is all quite irrelevant as I literally said the economy of salvation mirrors the ontological life of God”
A. The converse. Relevant because the ontological is analogously derived from the economy.

When a river goes forth from the throne it shows economy as the waters are distributed. Haydock Commentary Rev 22, 1-2:

V1 A river of water of life, or of living water. It is spoken with allusion to the rivers of paradise and to the tree of life. (Witham)
V2 For the healing of the nations, or Gentiles, to signify the call of all Gentiles or nations to this heavenly happiness. (Witham)

 

[Wandile]

I’m not disputing the two main schools. What I’m telling you as matter of fact is that the Greek tradition, much like the Latin, has its own source of theology. Even till this day the Cappadocians are the bedrock of Byzantine theology. The cappadocians are one of the main influences together with the Alexandrians for the doctrine of Holy Trinity being formalized the way it was. They are responsible for the refutation of the Arians, Sabellians, Macedonians in the creed as well as the Church’s traditional responses to the Appolinarians. Saying their theology was brushed aside is one of the biggest lies you can ever tell. The Cappadocians are theological heavy weights. The Cappadocians advanced a unique brand of theology which was different from its counterparts in its day. This cannot be ignored. The Alexandrian school was poetic and Antiochan very literal while the Latin and Cappadocians theological framework was very much a middle ground of these.

Secondly ,the quarrel exists out of stubbornness and nothing more which is what Brest highlights. Anyway back to the original point “through” isn’t the only way that these issues are reconciled which was your claim as the Greeks had no problem with filioque in their creed sung at Lyons II and many times in the Greek writers like St Epiphanius , Cyril and Athanasius “and” is used.

A. The converse. Relevant because the ontological is analogously derived from the economy.

You literally claimed nothing in the Bible is ontological regarding the Holy Spirit but only refers to the economy of salvation. You mean when scripture says the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the father or when it says the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the throne of God and the Lamb this is all economic? The Greek word used here is the same as the one in the creed… ἐκπορευόμενον which means eternal procession. Ontological. Vico, you’re a valued poster, but you are seriously erring here and it’s not even debatable.

When a river goes forth from the throne it shows economy as the waters are distributed. Haydock Commentary Rev 22, 1-2:

the river of life is the scriptural analogy to the Holy Spirit. Many church fathers, like St Ambrose of Milan whom I showed above, Identify the river of life with the Holy Spirit.

Other scriptures show this even:
“38 He that believes in me, as the scripture says:
Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water .
39 Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive who believed in him” - John 7:38-39

The official church teaching in Revelation 22:1 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1137:

“The book of Revelation of St. John, read in the Church’s liturgy, first reveals to us, “A throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne”: "the Lord God."1 It then shows the Lamb, “standing, as though it had been slain”: Christ crucified and risen, the one high priest of the true sanctuary, the same one “who offers and is offered, who gives and is given.” Finally it presents "the river of the water of life . . . flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb," one of most beautiful symbols of the Holy Spirit.”

 

[Vico]

…

1. There was a school in Caesarea in Palestine and through it the Alexandrian tradition influenced theologians of Cappadocia, such as St. Basil the Great and the two Gregorys. They sought to reconcile the spirit of Alexandria with that of Antioch.
2. Economy in Rev 22: the river flows into the great city. The word ekporeuomai used in Revelations 22, 1 means per Strong’s Concordance: to depart, be discharged, proceed, project:–come (forth, out of), depart, go (forth, out), issue, proceed (out of).
3. The Holy Spirit has an economic procession.
4. I did not say that the Cappadocians theology was brushed aside, and I did note their contributions. Read the reference please, since I am using authorities, not being one myself.
5. Lyons II is not accepted as an ecumenical council per the Orthodox, so that remains a difference.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

…

1. There was a school in Caesarea in Palestine and through it the Alexandrian tradition influenced theologians of Cappadocia, such as St. Basil the Great and the two Gregorys. They sought to reconcile the spirit of Alexandria with that of Antioch

They never sought to do such a thing. You’re putting words in their mouth. The simple fact is Greek theologians brought a new perspective to these matters and it’s very clear in how they differ to Alexandrian and Antiochan writers.

2.Economy in Rev 22: the river flows into the great city. The word ekporeuomai used in Revelations 22, 1 means per Strong’s Concordance: to depart, be discharged, proceed, project:–come (forth, out of), depart, go (forth, out), issue, proceed (out of).

It’s means more than mere procession. That definition of Strong is akin to the greek term proenai not Ekupromenon which denotes eternal ontological procession which is the very reason the Greeks have a dispute with us (it’s because of this word). They think we violate the sense of this word. Proenai is used to signify economic procession in greek theological writings or the mere “going out from”. Ekupromenon is the same word used in the creed to demonstrate the Holy Spirit’s eternal hypostatic procession to refute pneumatomachi/Macedonian objections on the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

1. The Holy Spirit has an economic procession.

Wrong completely:

“ the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration”

• Ecumenical Council of Florence

“ Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but one, not from two spirations but by only one,"

• Ecumenical Council of Lyons II

“ The Father from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both; without beginning, always, and without end”

• Ecumenical Council of Lateran IV

1. I did not say that the Cappadocians theology was brushed aside, and I did note their contributions. Read the reference please, since I am using authorities, not being one myself.

Like I’m saying you’re wrong about their terminology not being used and musings not accepted as they are the foundation for much of the traditional church responses to early heresies.

1. Lyons II is not accepted as an ecumenical council per the Orthodox, so that remains a difference.

I know they don’t accept it but I used it to show that when all misunderstanding is removed that “and the Son” can be used in the greek creed if understood in a certain way. That is, mediate procession from the Son.

 

[Vico]

…
I know they don’t accept it but I used it to show that when all misunderstanding is removed that “and the Son” can be used if understood in a certain way. That is, mediate procession from the Son.

1. The reference for “They sought to reconcile the spirit of Alexandria with that of Antioch” is Lectures In The School of Antioch, 2003 Fr. Tadros Y. Malty, p. 5.

2 & 3. The word ekporeuomai is used in Acts 9, 28 and is temporal, so it is not restricted to non-temporal. When the Holy Spirit comes in time it is the economy rather than the eternal.

1. To be clear, the terminology of the Cappadocian Fathers was not used early, but the new terminology was adopted officially (from St. Basil) after the First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). Specifically the words essence (ousia) and hypostaseis.

In a letter written in 375 to the leading Christians of Neocaesarea (Pontus), Basil stated … Seven years later this trinitarian terminology was officially adopted after the First Council of Constantinople … Constantinople I put trinitarian language firmly in place: three hypostaseis or prosopa and one ousia or physis in God. … The fourth century trinitarian vocabulary was fully taken over in Christology when (the one) hypostasis began to be attributed to Christ after the Council of Ephesus (431).
Christology (Gerald O’Collins, SJ) p. 185-186

1. You wrote: “and the Son” can be used if understood in a certain way.
   A. Of course, but it is not desirable for them. Note also what was said at the Council of Florence that “the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also”:

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma:
[From the Bull “Laetentur coeli,” July 6, 1439]
691 [The procession of the Holy Spirit] In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; we declare that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also. And since all that the Father has, the Father himself, in begetting, has given to His only begotten Son, with the exception of Fatherhood, the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself has from the Father eternally, by whom He was begotten also eternally. We define in addition that the explanation of words “Filioque” for the sake of declaring the truth and also because imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed.

 

[Wandile]

I think Vico we can go back and forth on this. I think let’s leave at this.

God bless you

 

[Vico]

I think Vico we can go back and forth on this. I think let’s leave at this.

God bless you

And you too.