Filioque??

[Ignatios]

Now do you reject that the word immediately introduces time? Since it is clear that I was translating and not interpreting or clarifying what St. Gregory “ MEANT ” by those words, but, if you pay heed you will find that I was speaking of what the word itself means, since the words Immediately, before, perceived, Literally are in connection with time, so therefore, St Greg. Of Nyssa went further explaining what “he meant” by them and not what they mean as they are… which is a typical Greek mind of thoughts and that is why I said before in a way that the Greeks must be interpreted and not translated, and what I did is that I didn’t give you the interpretation of the first quotation since your quote as presented was out of context from what we saw later on in your following quotation to that first quote.
So, thus, my translation to your first quote of Nyssa was correct according to the quote “AS PRESENTED BY YOU” ( which it was out of context, your quote that is), and since your quotation was out of context the error is on you for not giving a complete quotation. And the evidence that it was out of context is that you had to post the continuation of the first quote ( according to you) in another post in order to refute my “exegesis”, since it was impossible for you to do so using your first quote because it was shortly cut off, incomplete, out of context .
And again you refuted your self, As for the “Games”, it is games what you have been trying to do all along, and ,NO, they will not come to an end, as you are the one behind them.
Now if we look at your second quotation of Nyssa, we find it to be a major blow to your assertion, the Filioque that is ( Now I understand why you held back on the second quotation), since he spoke of “…being divisible neither by duration nor by an alien nature from the Father or from the Only-begotten. There are no intervals in that pre-temporal world:
Thus I agree with the above Since it shows a clear sign of the Equality of the THREE, where your Filioque implies that the Holy Spirit was inactive in some sort of way or in a stand-still Mode while the Procession operation was happening, or the least to say that HE was left out of that operation that the filioque speaks of.
Now, again you have demonstrated a very poor comprehension of all those prolonged debates, and it became obvious that comprehension of Texts and statements are a major problem in you.

So you admit that the Monarchy of the Father does extend from the Father through the Son to the Spirit, and then once again claim this is not eternal. St. Basil states the Monarchy of the Father extends “through the Only-begotten to the Spirit.” Do you deny he is speaking of the eternal Only-begotten Son here? If you do, then apparently the Father communicates his Monarchy temporally to the Spirit through the Son. Is that what you suggest – that the royal Dignity of the Father was communicated to the Spirit temporally? And if you want to know how the Father extends his royal dignity eternally through the Son, St. Basil tells us:
One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity. Of Him the intimate relationship to the Father and the Son is sufficiently declared by the fact of His not being ranked in the plurality of the creation, but being spoken of singly; for he is not one of many, but One. For as there is one Father and one Son, so is there one Holy Ghost.
newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm

Yes, he is conjoined to the Father through the Son. These are descriptions of the inner workings of the immanent Trinity. St. Basil specifically speaks of the economic activity of the Trinity in the history of salvation in his treatise on the Holy Spirit when that is what he means.

Heaven help us !!! HOW do you come to those conclusions? How and where did you see in your previous quote of St. Basil that I agree that the Monarchy of the FATHER extends from the FATHER through the Son to the Spirit? Where in the “previous “ quotation St. Basil speaks that the “FATHER’s Monarchy” extends through the SON to the Spirit??? He said the true “Dogma of” the Monarchy here it is again:

“…“Thus the way of the knowledge of God lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not (lost).”
The Monarchy is not lost because he had shown that the FATHER is the Origin the cause , natural goodness, inherent Holiness, royal dignity are the possession of all the PERSONS of the Holy Trinity, they are all co-equal , however he is making it clear that all comes From the FATHER he didn’t say that all the attributes above comes from the FATHER and the SON and the Holy Spirit, BUT again, FROM the FATHER indicating the Origin the cause of all is in the FATHER thus it is a clear proof of the Monarchy. Inherent Holiness, Royal dignity etc… are not the Monarchy but they come from the FATHER thus indicating the Monarchy of the FATHER, it is a self-explanatory, unless someone deliberately trying to play on words or have a very poor comprehension would understand it as such, St Basil is clear concerning the Monarchy of the FATHER.

 

[Ignatios]

“I live through [by, A.V.] the Father,” 884 and concerning Divine power he says that; “The Son hath power [can, A.V.] to do nothing of himself.” 885 And the self-complete Wisdom? I received “a commandment what I should say and what I should speak.” 886 Through all these words He is guiding us to the knowledge of the Father … Rather was the Word full of His Father’s excellences; He shines forth from the Father, and does all things according to the likeness of Him that begat Him. For if in essence He is without variation, so also is He without p. 14 variation in power. 890 And of those whose power is equal, the operation also is in all ways equal. “
“ … And in the creation bethink thee first, I pray thee, of the original cause of all things that are made, the Father…” Again indicating the Monarchy, and he goes further in a few line down saying: “…The Father, who creates by His sole will, could not stand in any need of the Son, but nevertheless He wills through the Son…” Again Monarchy indication. And again later on he says :”… and the Spirit of the mouth of God is “the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father.” Again with the last sentence is 2 birds in one stone the Monarchy and the Procession , here the Procession(ekporeuesthai) from the Father.(period) refutation to the Filioque, and also refutation concerning the Monarchy that the Procession of the SPIRIT is from the Father in which it is aiming to the Monarchy of the FATHER.
Again of Basil: “…"With the help of the strength that enlightens us we turn our gaze to the beauty of the image (that is, the Word) of God who is invisible, and through this beauty we arrive at a conception of the “Archetype” (the Father), use beauty is greater than any other. In this the Spirit of knowledge is inseparably present….”
How about some of Gregory the theologian concerning those issues:
“There should be no one so zealous in his love for the Father that he would deny Him the attribute of being a Father. For whose Father can He be if we consider that He is separated not only from creation, but also from the nature of His own Son! One should not detract from His dignity as a Source, since this belongs to Him as a Father and Generator.” “When I call Him a Source, do not imagine that I am referring to a source in time, or that I am presuming an interval between the Begettor and the Begotten. Do not separate their natures or falsely assume that there is something existing to separate these two coeternities abiding within each other. If time is older than the Son, this is because the Father caused time before the Son.”
“Thus, the being of the Father and the generation of the Only-Begotten coincide exactly, but also without confusion. The generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit should be Considered to have taken place “before there was time.” The Father never began to be a Father in time since His very being had no beginning. He “did not take being from anyone, not even from Himself.” He is properly the Father “because He is not also the Son.”
Although the hypostases are coeternal and superior to time they are not independent of each other. The Son and the Spirit “have no beginning in relation to time” but They are “not without an ultimate Source.” The Father, however, does not exist before them because neither He nor They are subject to time. The Son and the Spirit are coeternal but, unlike the Father, they are not without a source, for they are “from the Father, although not after Him.” This mysterious causality does not entail succession or origination. Nothing within the Trinity ever comes into being or originates because the Divinity is completion, “an endless sea of being.” Gregory is aware that this distinction is not easy to comprehend and that it can be confusing to “simple people.” “It is true that that which has no beginning is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily without a source, if this source is the Father.”
“It would be extremely inappropriate for the Divinity to achieve complete perfection only after changing something about Itself.” “To cut off or eliminate anything at all from the Three is equal to cutting off everything. It is a rebellion against the whole Divinity.” Gregory asks: “What father did not begin to be a father?” And he answers: “Only a Father whose being had no beginning.” In this same manner the Son’s generation is coincident with His being.”

Well tedgesq I do not take a pleasure of refuting you at every corner and intersection, and I will drop this debate on the ground that all of your assertion had proven to be false and were utterly refuted at any level you tried to put them. So on this ground I dont see a meaning to continue at the same thing over and over times and times again.
So I will stop here concerning those issues with you, it has been pleasure, you really did bring up some challenges at times, forgive me if or when I offended, IN CHRIST ††† and GOD bless you.

 

[eva6206213]

Thank you for the essay~
i like!

 

[Ghosty]

Alethiaphile:

This description, of course, is taken from St. Augustine. The problem is it requires that Son’s power of spiration be the Son’s love for the Father. However, the Son can’t receive that from the Father; He can receive the Father’s love for him, but He can’t receive what must be His own free action. Furthermore, the Son’s love for the Father cannot be the same as the Father’s love for the Son, so they can not be one and the same power, as is required for “as from one principle”.

I recommend doing a thorough reading of Aquinas’ use of the term “love”, as you’ll find that it isn’t always a power or action, but can also be something received, and this reception is unitive. So when Aquinas refers to the Son receiving the Love of the Father, he’s not speaking about the power of Love, which is the Divine Nature itself, but rather the gift of Love, which is the Holy Spirit.

Aquinas covers this under the question of the Holy Spirit’s name as Love.

As for the examples of the hammer and the bailiff, Aquinas is not speaking of instrumentality (the question isn’t the Son’s contribution in terms of Source), but rather of how something can be directly from two things at the same time. The work of the artisan proceeds directly from him, and also directly from the mallet, and the work proceeds from the mallet because of the action of the artisan. There is one single motion and action, with both mallet and artisan directly contributing to the same work, with the artisan as source and the mallet as the reason the work proceeds from the artist (the work wouldn’t proceed otherwise than by the mallet).

Likewise with the bailiff, because the bailiff isn’t acting of his own power, but is an extension of the king. The king does lock up the prisoner, by way of the bailiff. You may be thinking of this too much in a modern manner, rather than in a manner appropriate to the usage of the time. A good example of Aquinas’ mindset can be found in Scripture when it is said that Pilate wrote the sign that was placed above Christ’s head, when obviously it was a soldier under Pilate. Servants were not viewed as independent actors who were told to do something, they were viewed as literal extensions of the actual actor, so Pilate could say “what I have written shall remain”.

So, in the case of the bailiff the king and the bailiff are acting with one power, the power of the king. The king is acting immediately, because his power extends immediately to the prisoner, through the bailiff. There is no “gap” between the king and the prisoner, since the power of the bailiff is the power of the king extended through the bailiff. The fact that the bailiff is a “mediate” actor is irrelevant to the question of what power is being exercised, because there is only one power, and that is the authority of the king.

So, going back to the example of the Father and the Son, the Father is the Source of the Spiration, and the Son is the “medium”, but there is only one Spiration and not two, even though the relationships of these two Persons to that Spiration are different. Just because they have different relations to that one Power (the Father being Source, the Son receiving the Power), it doesn’t mean there are two different Spirations, just as in the case of the authority above there are not two powers of authority locking up the prisoner, but only one being exercised in a unique way by the king through the bailiff (or by the king AND the bailiff, if you want an example of how these two terms are indeed equivalent in such cases).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alethiaphile]

First, thanks for your considered response.

I recommend doing a thorough reading of Aquinas’ use of the term “love”, as you’ll find that it isn’t always a power or action, but can also be something received, and this reception is unitive. So when Aquinas refers to the Son receiving the Love of the Father, he’s not speaking about the power of Love, which is the Divine Nature itself, but rather the gift of Love, which is the Holy Spirit.

I understand that Aquinas was not speaking of the power of Love, but of the Love itself. But the Love that the Son must recieve for this account of the spiration to make sense is not the love of the Father for the Son, which clearly can be recieved, but the love of the Son for the Father, because the procession is said to be out of the nutual love between the Father and the Son. But it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to see how the Son can receive His love for the Father from the Father.

As for the examples of the hammer and the bailiff, Aquinas is not speaking of instrumentality (the question isn’t the Son’s contribution in terms of Source), but rather of how something can be directly from two things at the same time. The work of the artisan proceeds directly from him, and also directly from the mallet, and the work proceeds from the mallet because of the action of the artisan. There is one single motion and action, with both mallet and artisan directly contributing to the same work, with the artisan as source and the mallet as the reason the work proceeds from the artist (the work wouldn’t proceed otherwise than by the mallet).

The problem, as I see it, is that all the features in the illustration which support Aquinas’s account of the Procession, “one single motion and action” “the artisan as the source”, etc. are inseparable from the mallet’s role as an instrumentality. I don’t think Aquinas can reasonably use this illustration to illustrate the features of the Spiration he wants to show, and at the same time disavow the mallet’s nature as an instrumentality. Yet, he cannot admit that instrumentality into the Procession, because that conflicts with the “equally” component.

Likewise with the bailiff, because the bailiff isn’t acting of his own power, but is an extension of the king. The king does lock up the prisoner, by way of the bailiff. You may be thinking of this too much in a modern manner, rather than in a manner appropriate to the usage of the time. A good example of Aquinas’ mindset can be found in Scripture when it is said that Pilate wrote the sign that was placed above Christ’s head, when obviously it was a soldier under Pilate. Servants were not viewed as independent actors who were told to do something, they were viewed as literal extensions of the actual actor, so Pilate could say “what I have written shall remain”.
So, in the case of the bailiff the king and the bailiff are acting with one power, the power of the king. The king is acting immediately, because his power extends immediately to the prisoner, through the bailiff. There is no “gap” between the king and the prisoner, since the power of the bailiff is the power of the king extended through the bailiff. The fact that the bailiff is a “mediate” actor is irrelevant to the question of what power is being exercised, because there is only one power, and that is the authority of the king.

Your point about the usage of the time, and it being “one power” is well-taken. And I would agree that this illustration is less problematic than that of the artisan-hammer. Still, there is the pesky matter of “equally”. I do not think it can reasonably be said that the action of locking up the prisoner comes “equally” both from the king and the bailiff. Do you agree with me that the relationship between king and bailiff with reagrd to the lockup can be adequately stated as one of delegation? If so, as I maintain, then the action cannnot be said to proceed “equally” from the two parties. This is especially clear if it is considered that, by the old common law of agency, if the king dies, the bailiff’s authority disappears. This came up in Church law, as you know, in the case of the excommunication by Pope Leo of Michael Cerularius through Cardinal Humbert. Anyway, this illustrates that the bailiff holds his power in virtue of the king’s power. It is the same power, but it is not held equally.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that Aquinas is obligated to produce an example of where a power is exercised “equally” by two parties, yet one party only exercises what has been given it by the other. I guess the real question is whether a power held by delegation from another power, can be said to be exercised “equally” between the two powers. It is very difficult for me to see how it can be.

Continued

 

[Alethiaphile]

Continued

So, going back to the example of the Father and the Son, the Father is the Source of the Spiration, and the Son is the “medium”, but there is only one Spiration and not two, even though the relationships of these two Persons to that Spiration are different. Just because they have different relations to that one Power (the Father being Source, the Son receiving the Power), it doesn’t mean there are two different Spirations,

I agree that under Aquinas’ account, apparently followed by Lyons and Florence, there is only one Spiration. The problem doesn’t lie there. It lies in the “equally” and “from one principle” language. Aquinas seems to say in Article 4 that the “one principle” is simply the one spiration, and that otherwise the Father and Son act as two Spirators. I simply do not find this an adequate account of “one principle”. One power or action does not ipso facto mean one principle of the action. If the “one principle” was the Father, then I think that would be Orthodox (but then would conflict with “equally”) but Aquinas makes clear in Article 4 that the “one principle” is not the Father, but “stands confusedly and indistinctly for the two Persons together.” (“Confusedly” here does not mean mental confusion, but simply indistinctness). I think this is really a double procession, even if it is not labeled as such. Joe