Filioque (the details)

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Yes, I am aware of the anathemas of Blarchanae, but none of them touch upon the actual teaching of the Latin Church (can’t say for sure about Beccus). There is a definite train of thought pervading the anathemas that the Son is called “cause” in the sense that He is Source. But that is not what the Latin Church teaches about filioque. The Latins unequivocally teach that only the Father is Source. Note well that Blarchanae condemns the idea that the Son is cause of the Holy Spirit’s Essence. But it is obvious that the Synod was equating “cause” with the idea of “Source.” The Latins indeed teach that the Son is cause of the Holy Spirit’s Essence (but not His hypostasis), but what the Latins do not teach is that the Son is the Source or a Source of the Holy Spirit’s Essence. Only the Father is Source according to the Latins.

From Blachernae:

To the same, who teach that the Father and the Son—not as two principles and two causes—share in the causality of the Spirit, and that the Son is as much a participant with the Father as is implied in the preposition “through.” According to the distinction and strength of these prepositions they introduce a distinction in the Spirit’s cause, with the result that sometimes they believe and say that the Father is cause, and sometimes the son. This being so, they introduce a plurality and a multitude of causes in the procession of the Spirit, even though this was prohibited on countless occasions. As such, 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.

The Eastern Romans were not stupid. They knew quite plainly that they were denying that the Son had any sort of causality regarding the existence of the Spirit.

If your interpretation of Palamas is true, that is where I, as an apostolic Christian of the Oriental Tradition (not as a defender of the Latin Tradition), would disagree. The idea that there can be a distinction between “internal” and “external” IN ETERNITY (i.e., a distinction of “internal” and “external” IN THE GODHEAD) is unknown to the Oriental Tradition (and, I contend, to the early Fathers). God is simple in Himself and the only distinction that the Fathers speak of in the Godhead is the distinction of Persons, nothing else.

Besides, this distinction of “internal” vs. “external” is not even found in Blarchanae (or Palamas, I gather (?)). This is a development in modern EO’xy. This is why I stated in my earlier post that the rhetoric of certain quarters of EO’xy today does not reflect the concerns of her forbears.

The internal/external language is simply a gloss which explains the meaning of Gregory II and Gregory Palamas, who are using language (essence, energy, hypostasis), which has no meaning to modern human beings. When Gregory II, for example, distinguishes between the manifestation of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son and the immediate procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, he says that the Spirit’s having existence as a being, an hypostasis, can only be from the Father, but that the Spirit’s existence, can be manifest through the Son, insofar as He shines forth from the Son. What this means is that on the level of trinitarian existence, the Spirit only has his person from the Father, but that the energies are manifest through the Son.

This is what Gregory II alludes to when he writes:

If this enhypostasized essence of the Paraclete is both gift and energy, do we—who partake of the gift and for whom the gift and illumination operate3share and receive the essence? And, what truth is there in him who says that the divine is participable alone in its energies and illumination? As regards what St. Athanasius says—that the coming down of the Holy Spirit is realized in the energies and divine power—what value will that have? None, I believe—if you are right!

Here, he is showing that it is absurd not to distinguish between the essence and energy (supporting himself with a quote from St. Athanasius, explaining Pentecost). The argument being that if we came to know God in essence, then the Holy Spirit coming down during Pentecost would have been an incarnation or adoption. Likewise, it would mean that when Christ breathed on the Apostles, that he was giving them the essence of God. Surely these conclusions are absurd, which is why it must be true that the energies are different from the essence of God. From our perspective, this does indeed signal a distinction between the ‘internal’ and incommunicable life of God, as opposed to the ‘external’ and communicable life of God.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Further, the notion that the energeia of God can be disconnected from the ousia of God *** in ANY way as far as the Godhead itself is concerned*** is incomprehensible and cannot be found in the early Fathers. From what I have read of Palamas and Blarchanae, what they opposed was making the Son as SOURCE in any sense - whether of the ousia, the energeia, or the hypostasis. But the Latins have NEVER taught that. The key to resolving this issue of “source” versus “cause” is rather simple - one just needs to understand that though the Eastern Church does not distinguish between “source” and “cause” in its thinking, the Latin Chuch does. So the Easterns cannot automatically accuse the Latins of teaching that the Son is “the Source” or “a Source” simply because their (the Latins) theology allows them to say that the Son is “cause.”

No, they opposed many more things at Blachernae, including the idea that the essence causes the Holy Spirit, that the Father and the Son as one cause cause the Holy Spirit, that the shared essence of the Father and the Son causes the Holy Spirit, that the Father through the Son causes the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, and that the prepositions “through” and “from” are equivalent.

Also, It is from the writings of the early Fathers from Alexandria, where we can see the essence and energies being distinguished the most. St. Athanasius, in against the Arians, distinguishes between the energy of the will and the nature of God when speaking of the difference between creatures and the Son, saying that the Son is begotten according to nature, while creatures are created according to the energy of the will. Similarly, St. Cyril likewise differentiates between essence and energy, saying that the generation of the divine persons belongs to nature, while creation belongs to the energies. In fact, St. Cyril says quite plainly that, “nature and energy are not the same.” It is natural, therefore, that St. Gregory Palamas would draw on this already existent distinction between nature and energy and expound upon it fully, to explain both the transcendence of God in essence, and His immanence energetically.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Great responses!

From Blachernae:

The Eastern Romans were not stupid. They knew quite plainly that they were denying that the Son had any sort of causality regarding the existence of the Spirit.

Yes, they were responding to Beccus, so they knew what they were responding to. But Lyons and Florence taught the exact opposite of what Blacharnae was teaching against in the excerpt you provided - the idea that there is more than one cause of the Holy Spirit. The Latins repudiated this error by teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from one principle and asserted an anathema against those that proposed that there are two principles of the Holy Spirit. It might be difficult for you to understand as an Eastern how the Latin Church can claim that the Father is cause and the Son is cause, but only as one principle. Here’s the problem, my brother in Christ - According to Beccus’ confession he taught that that the Father and Son are together one principle of the Holy Spirit, and explicitly interpreted “principle” to mean SOURCE. BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT LYONS OR FLORENCE TAUGHT. Lyons and, more explicitly, Florence taught that the Father is Source of both Son and Holy Spirit. That should at least tell you that when Florence stated that the Son is “cause” of the Holy Spirit it was not saying that He is Source of the Holy Spirit. There is only ONE Source according to the Latin doctrine, and that is the Father.

The internal/external language is simply a gloss…Gregory II, for example, distinguishes between the manifestation of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son and the immediate procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, he says that the Spirit’s having existence as a being, an hypostasis, can only be from the Father, but that the Spirit’s existence, can be manifest through the Son, insofar as He shines forth from the Son. What this means is that on the level of trinitarian existence, the Spirit only has his person from the Father, but that the energies are manifest through the Son.

I don’t have a problem with this as an Oriental.

Here, he is showing that it is absurd not to distinguish between the essence and energy (supporting himself with a quote from St. Athanasius, explaining Pentecost). The argument being that if we came to know God in essence, then the Holy Spirit coming down during Pentecost would have been an incarnation or adoption. Likewise, it would mean that when Christ breathed on the Apostles, that he was giving them the essence of God. Surely these conclusions are absurd, which is why it must be true that the energies are different from the essence of God. From our perspective, this does indeed signal a distinction between the ‘internal’ and incommunicable life of God, as opposed to the ‘external’ and communicable life of God.

Here’s where I must disagree as an Oriental. Pope St. Athanasius makes a distinction between Essence and Energy only as it relates to creatures. Nowhere does he dare to claim that this distinction exists within the Godhead or in Eternity.

No, they opposed many more things at Blachernae, including the idea that the essence causes the Holy Spirit

Nowhere does the Latin Church teach this - maybe Beccus, but not the Latin Church.

that the Father and the Son as one cause cause the Holy Spirit,

Yes, “cause” interpreted as “source.” But the Latins do not teach that the Father and Son are one Source of the HS, for only the Father is the Source.

The problem here is that the Easterns interpret “cause,” “source” and "principle’ as equivalent terms. But the Latins do not. Beccus as an Eastern could not grasp this and used the terms interchangeably, but they are not perfectly equivalent in the Latin mind.

that the shared essence of the Father and the Son causes the Holy Spirit

Nowhere does the Latin Church teach this - maybe Beccus, but not the Latin Church.

that the Father through the Son causes the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit

Again, “cause” as “source,” but the Latins do not teach that the Son is Source.

and that the prepositions “through” and “from” are equivalent.

They are not. The problem here is that the Latins and Greeks were working from different premises. The Greeks (including Beccus) were interpreting “through” in the sense that they understood “from” (i.e. as referring to Source). However, in contradistinction, the Latins were interpreting “from” in the sense that they understood “through” (i.e., not as a reference to Source).

Also, It is from the writings of the early Fathers from Alexandria, where we can see the essence and energies being distinguished the most. St. Athanasius, in against the Arians, distinguishes between the energy of the will and the nature of God when speaking of the difference between creatures and the Son, saying that the Son is begotten according to nature, while creatures are created according to the energy of the will. Similarly, St. Cyril likewise differentiates between essence and energy, saying that the generation of the divine persons belongs to nature, while creation belongs to the energies. In fact, St. Cyril says quite plainly that, “nature and energy are not the same.” It is natural, therefore, that St. Gregory Palamas would draw on this already existent distinction between nature and energy and expound upon it fully, to explain both the transcendence of God in essence, and His immanence energetically.

Again, NONE of these Fathers dared to claim that the distinction between Essence/Nature/Subtance and Energy actually existed WITHIN the Godhead, but only in relation to Creation.

Blessings

 

[Cavaradossi]

Again, NONE of these Fathers dared to claim that the distinction between Essence/Nature/Subtance and Energy actually existed WITHIN the Godhead, but only in relation to Creation.

Blessings

I think that St. Cyril was pretty clear when he said that, “nature and energy are not the same thing,” but I suppose that we will simply have to disagree then. For me, energy must be separate of nature, or else the distinction between those that are created and those that are uncreated would be nonexistent, and our theosis would involve becoming god by nature instead of god by grace, an absurdity.

I can find plenty of Eastern Fathers who also speak of energy as a distinct thing from nature (and will as well), St. John of Damascus being a primary example. I think that idea must not bother those familiar with Cappadocian triadology because for them unity comes from the hypostasis of God the Father, not from the essence alone.

 

[Vico]

Per Augustine, we have the relationships of Father-Son and Spirator-Spirit that distinguish Father and Son, and Father and Holy Spirit. Per Augustine, Son and Holy Spirit are distinguished from each other by that the Holy Spirit is sourced by the Father and the Son. The unity of God, per Augustine, is not in the person of the Father but in the divine essence common to the Father and the Son.

The eastern approach is different, because there is subordination of hypostases to the Father, but not of essence.

So there is a different description, east and west, of the communication of the essence.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Per Augustine, we have the relationships of Father-Son and Spirator-Spirit that distinguish Father and Son, and Father and Holy Spirit. Per Augustine, Son and Holy Spirit are distinguished from each other by that the Holy Spirit is sourced by the Father and the Son. The unity of God, per Augustine, is not in the person of the Father but in the divine essence common to the Father and the Son.

The eastern approach is different, because there is subordination of hypostases to the Father, but not of essence.

So there is a different description, east and west, of the communication of the essence.

This is the difference, I think, which really is the underlying cause of the *filioque *dispute.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother In Christ Cavaradossi,

I think that St. Cyril was pretty clear when he said that, “nature and energy are not the same thing,” but I suppose that we will simply have to disagree then. For me, energy must be separate of nature, or else the distinction between those that are created and those that are uncreated would be nonexistent, and our theosis would involve becoming god by nature instead of god by grace, an absurdity.

I can find plenty of Eastern Fathers who also speak of energy as a distinct thing from nature (and will as well), St. John of Damascus being a primary example. I think that idea must not bother those familiar with Cappadocian triadology because for them unity comes from the hypostasis of God the Father, not from the essence alone.

For every early Church Father you can provide with quotes on the distinction between Essence and Energy, I can provide quotes from those same Fathers on the simplicity of God in Himself. Off hand, I can think of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, St. Athanasius and St. John Damascene.

I’m not sure if the Catholic or Orthodox Churches has dogmatized this matter, so disagreement on this matter should not affect the unity of the Church, should it? I think the Eastern Orthodox (or certain quarters of the EOC) think it is a dogmatic matter, and these are the ones more likely to hurl accusations of heterodoxy or heresy at the Latin Catholic Church. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

Per Augustine, we have the relationships of Father-Son and Spirator-Spirit that distinguish Father and Son, and Father and Holy Spirit. Per Augustine, Son and Holy Spirit are distinguished from each other by that the Holy Spirit is sourced by the Father and the Son.

But one cannot look at merely the relationship of the Father/Son to the Holy Spirit in order to have a proper Trinitarian theology - one must SIMULTANEOUSLY look at the relationship of the Father to the Son. And AFAIK, Augustine (and every Latin ECF) understood and taught that though the Father and Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, it is the Father ALONE who is principle without principle. So there is a recognized distinction between Father and Son in relation to the Spirit in the Latin phrenoma on the Trinity. Not only St. Augustine, but St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. John Damascene also noted this distinction between the Father and Son in relation to the Holy Spirit.

The unity of God, per Augustine, is not in the person of the Father but in the divine essence common to the Father and the Son.

Did you mean “…in the divine essence common to the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit”?

The eastern approach is different, because there is subordination of hypostases to the Father, but not of essence.

Really? I thought the Eaterns teach that the Father is the Source of the Essence. Does that not imply a “subordination” even in Essence?

So there is a different description, east and west, of the communication of the essence.

I’m not an expert on Eastern Trinitarianism, but it seems to me that this is not the difference. Rather the difference is the willingness to assign a distinction of Essence and Energy even WITHIN the Godhead. On that point, it would also be a difference with the Orientals. I personally don’t think this is a matter that should cause or perpetuate disunity (since it delves into the Mystery of God which I think the Church should or can define), but I think many EO are willing to do just that on this matter (i.e., being dogmatic on a matter that should not or can not be defined).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

BIG OOPS!

…I personally don’t think this is a matter that should cause or perpetuate disunity (since it delves into the Mystery of God which I think the Church should or can define)…

That should read — “since it delves into the Mystery of God which I think the Church should NOT or can NOT define.”

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Truth be known, for all that I have read on this subject, the real reason for the ongoing controversy seems to be one of process as opposed to theology, complicated by challenges in translation. The language of the Creed was agreed (in Greek) via ecumenical council, as would be appropriate for a universal profession of faith. The Filioque was introduced solely in the West (and not without resistance at first from Rome) and was not universally agreed.

At present, both forms of usage exist in the Catholic Church, East and West. While Eastern Catholic Churches for some time did “insert” the Filioque, that practice is all but discontinued (except, perhaps, when the inserted language "and the Son’] appears in some old service books still in use and occasionally is not corrected in practice).

As for the challenge of language, the Catholic Church acknowledges that the translation to Latin does not retain the original meaning in Greek, as only a verb of more generally meaning is available.

Of course, this is a “shorthand” summary, likely to trigger a round of “corrective” posts. My main point is that it cannot be stated that the Catholic Church rejects the original language, as that language is in use in the Eastern Catholic Churches with the full understanding, acknowledgement and encouragement of Rome. Rome’s reluctance to revert to the original language for usage within the Latin Rite is somewhat more of a mystery, but the door of possibility is open in a way via the Eastern Catholic Churches.

BTW - I have to confess that when the new Roman Missal was first published and available on the Internet, the first thing I looked at was the language of the Creed, hoping that it may have been changed (or at least that the Filioque may have been parenthesized) - no such luck, of course!

IMO, this issue is more important in the context of ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches at this juncture.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ByzCathCantor,

As for the challenge of language, the Catholic Church acknowledges that the translation to Latin does not retain the original meaning in Greek, as only a verb of more generally meaning is available.

Of course, this is a “shorthand” summary, likely to trigger a round of “corrective” posts. My main point is that it cannot be stated that the Catholic Church rejects the original language, as that language is in use in the Eastern Catholic Churches with the full understanding, acknowledgement and encouragement of Rome. Rome’s reluctance to revert to the original language for usage within the Latin Rite is somewhat more of a mystery, but the door of possibility is open in a way via the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I don’t see why your statement above would trigger a round of “corrective” posts.

BTW - I have to confess that when the new Roman Missal was first published and available on the Internet, the first thing I looked at was the language of the Creed, hoping that it may have been changed (or at least that the Filioque may have been parenthesized) - no such luck, of course!

However, this statement will elicit a response from me. We as Easterns and Orientals should not expect a change in the language of the Latins. The Latins have already admitted that procedit is not a perfect translation of ekporeusai, and never was. But the term “proceeds” in English and in every Latin-derived language indeed translates the Latin procedit correctly. On the other hand, when we Easterns and Orientals translate ekporeusai as “proceeds,” it is US who are not being faithful to the original Greek.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

We as Easterns and Orientals should not expect a change in the language of the Latins. The Latins have already admitted that procedit is not a perfect translation of ekporeusai, and never was. But the term “proceeds” in English and in every Latin-derived language indeed translates the Latin procedit correctly. On the other hand, when we Easterns and Orientals translate ekporeusai as “proceeds,” it is US who are not being faithful to the original Greek.

My brother Marduk:

No argument from me, and I did not mean to infer that we should insist or expect a change, just wishful thinking on my part connected to ongoing prayer for the cause of unity.

Peace be with you!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dear brother In Christ Cavaradossi,

For every early Church Father you can provide with quotes on the distinction between Essence and Energy, I can provide quotes from those same Fathers on the simplicity of God in Himself. Off hand, I can think of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, St. Athanasius and St. John Damascene.

I’m not sure if the Catholic or Orthodox Churches has dogmatized this matter, so disagreement on this matter should not affect the unity of the Church, should it? I think the Eastern Orthodox (or certain quarters of the EOC) think it is a dogmatic matter, and these are the ones more likely to hurl accusations of heterodoxy or heresy at the Latin Catholic Church. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

And how does having a will, energies, essence and three hypostases relate to the supposed simplicity of God? This is not plotinus’ monad who doesn’t do anything, this is the trinitarian God who became incarnate, so it should be clear therefore that the quotes about divine simplicity mean something else than precluding the idea that God can have a will, energies, essence and three hypostases. In fact, God having three personal hypostases is an absolute affront against the classical hellenic (that is pagan) idea of divine simplicity. I think this concept needs to be redefined.

 

[Marybeloved]

And how does having a will, energies, essence and three hypostases relate to the supposed simplicity of God? This is not plotinus’ monad who doesn’t do anything, this is the trinitarian God who became incarnate, so it should be clear therefore that the quotes about divine simplicity mean something else than precluding the idea that God can have a will, energies, essence and three hypostases. In fact, God having three personal hypostases is an absolute affront against the classical hellenic (that is pagan) idea of divine simplicity. I think this concept needs to be redefined.

Divine simplicity means that God is one. Please explain how that is pagan. Perhaps the OT is pagan, after all? I’ve seen many connections made with your version of the E/E distinction with the Greek (pagan) idea of an utterly transcendent God and demiurges mediating between this God and creation to explain how this unreachable God can have anything to do with his own creation. Should we just call Christianity pagan and be done with it?

The comment about the three persons and D.Simplicity…? Come on. I have a feeling you know this statement is just not true. Do we not say that God is one in three? So three persons must mean that God cannot be one? Sounds like something a Muslim should be arguing. Perhaps you are the one who needs to learn what Divine simplicity is. God is one essence in three persons- That’s Divine simplicity 101.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

And how does having a will, energies, essence and three hypostases relate to the supposed simplicity of God? This is not plotinus’ monad who doesn’t do anything, this is the trinitarian God who became incarnate, so it should be clear therefore that the quotes about divine simplicity mean something else than precluding the idea that God can have a will, energies, essence and three hypostases. In fact, God having three personal hypostases is an absolute affront against the classical hellenic (that is pagan) idea of divine simplicity. I think this concept needs to be redefined.

Don’t know why God’s will has anything to do with this. Do you think God is mutable because of His will?

The Essence/Energy distinction was made by the Fathers to explain how it is that God who is totally other can relate to His creation. Is there anything created in the Godhead? So why would you assert that the Essence/Energy distinction exists in the Godhead? Please answer that.

The three Hypostases is a given. It is what the Fathers teach. Your argument amounts to:
“Since there is a distinction within the Godhead, why can’t there be other distinctions?” The reason there can’t be other distinctions in the Godhead for us apostolic Christians is because Sacred Tradition does not teach us any other distinction in the Godhead except the distinction of Persons (and the natural corollary that there is a distinction between the unique hypostases and the common ousia).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

And how does having a will, energies, essence and three hypostases relate to the supposed simplicity of God? This is not plotinus’ monad who doesn’t do anything, this is the trinitarian God who became incarnate, so it should be clear therefore that the quotes about divine simplicity mean something else than precluding the idea that God can have a will, energies, essence and three hypostases. In fact, God having three personal hypostases is an absolute affront against the classical hellenic (that is pagan) idea of divine simplicity. I think this concept needs to be redefined.

Also, D.Simpliity says that God has no parts, is not composite- So to you, this is pagan and the fact that three persons exist in God means that God indeed is composite? Haven’t you always argued that the East does not teach that God is made of parts, nor seek to divide God into parts? So I suppose, we are both pagans- East and West- for asserting that God is not at all composite.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Also, D.Simpliity says that God has no parts, is not composite- So to you, this is pagan and the fact that three persons exist in God means that God indeed is composite?

That would be the case with the whole not being composed of parts thing. That definitely didn’t come from the scriptures, that came from Plotinus. It’s ok, however, so long as it is understood as you pointed out in the last post. God is indivisibly one. The problem comes when we try to subordinate the persons of God to this concept.

 

[Marybeloved]

For me, energy must be separate of nature, or else the distinction between those that are created and those that are uncreated would be nonexistent, and our theosis would involve becoming god by nature instead of god by grace, an absurdity.

This reasoning/deduction is not true. God communicating his essence to creatures cannot merge the creature and the Divine simply because what is communicated to us in divinization is God- It does not cease to be God by the fact of its communication to us, it remains the essence of God. We on the other hand retain our own essence and can never become Divine persons so as to make God’s essence communicated to us freely, “our own essence”. The gift remains God, so no confusion with the creature is possible. That’s why we call it participation while the Blessed Trinity is God by nature.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This reasoning/deduction is not true. God communicating his essence to creatures cannot merge the creature and the Divine simply because what is communicated to us in divinization is God- It does not cease to be God by the fact of its communication to us, it remains the essence of God. We on the other hand retain our own essence and can never become Divine persons so as to make God’s essence communicated to us freely, “our own essence”. The gift remains God, so no confusion with the creature is possible. That’s why we call it participation while the Blessed Trinity is God by nature.

We will have to disagree then. I will agree with St. Athanasius in Contra Arianos and St. Cyril both of whom said that the creation according to the operation of will and the begetting according to nature are different, and St. Cyril who said explicitly that, “nature and energy are not the same thing.”

 

[Marybeloved]

God is indivisibly one. The problem comes when we try to subordinate the persons of God to this concept.

The absolute oneness of God is God’s first revelation to man- The entire OT is built on this one truth, it’s what separated the chosen children of God from pagans. I honestly do not see how understanding God in the order he himself has set can be problematic- The God true God who IS, is ONE and also Three: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That is not problematic, just different from your own tradition’s approach. Nothing shows that the latter is the true approach, nor even that it’s essentially contradictory with the former.