Procession in God

[PluniaZ]

The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges two types of procession in God: (1) the generation of the Son by the Father and (2) the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The procession of the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son as though from two principles, but as from one principle, so it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Saint Gregory of Nyssa offers an apt analogy for the procession of the Holy Spirit:

“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).”

newadvent.org/fathers/2903.htm

The only other system regarding procession in God in the Christian tradition is that of the Eastern Orthodox. Despite clear patristic texts in the Greek Fathers, such as that by Saint Gregory of Nyssa above, and the explicit teaching of Saint John of Damascus that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Eastern Orthodox at the Council of Blacharnae in 1285 formalized the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, without any involvement of the Son in such procession. Rather, the Son “eternally manifests” the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit rests in the Son. oocities.org/trvalentine/orthodox/tomos1285.html

In addition, in the 14th century, Constantinople held a series of councils defining that there is a third type of procession in God, an eternal procession of energy from God’s essence. bekkos.wordpress.com/martin-jugie-the-palamite-controversy/6-palamism-as-official-church-doctrine/

I have illustrated these understandings of procession in God below:

 

[Ghosty]

The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges two types of procession in God: (1) the generation of the Son by the Father and (2) the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The procession of the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son as though from two principles, but as from one principle, so it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Saint Gregory of Nyssa offers an apt analogy for the procession of the Holy Spirit:

“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).”

newadvent.org/fathers/2903.htm

The only other system regarding procession in God in the Christian tradition is that of the Eastern Orthodox. Despite clear patristic texts in the Greek Fathers, such as that by Saint Gregory of Nyssa above, and the explicit teaching of Saint John of Damascus that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Eastern Orthodox at the Council of Blacharnae in 1285 formalized the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, without any involvement of the Son in such procession. Rather, the Son “eternally manifests” the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit rests in the Son. oocities.org/trvalentine/orthodox/tomos1285.html

In addition, in the 14th century, Constantinople held a series of councils defining that there is a third type of procession in God, an eternal procession of energy from God’s essence. bekkos.wordpress.com/martin-jugie-the-palamite-controversy/6-palamism-as-official-church-doctrine/

I have illustrated these understandings of procession in God below:

https://imgur.com/vKmL1tg

Not quite sure what the purpose of this post is. Were you intending to discuss something?

 

[PluniaZ]

Not quite sure what the purpose of this post is. Were you intending to discuss something?

I wanted to share my illustrations of the different understandings of procession in God. Far too often I see the Roman Catholic view expressed as:

Father → Holy Spirit ← Son

And I wanted to clarify, based on Saint Gregory of Nyssa, that it is actually:

Father → Son → Holy Spirit

 

[Vonsalza]

This is the filioque fuss.

Waste of time to discuss as the theory of procession has no effect on the reality of their being.

Those who think it a worthy basis on which to divide the Church, on either side of the debate, are deserving of the business-end of the iron rod Christ holds in Revelation 2…

 

[PluniaZ]

This is the filioque fuss.

Waste of time to discuss as the theory of procession has no effect on the reality of their being.

Those who think it a worthy basis on which to divide the Church, on either side of the debate, are deserving of the business-end of the iron rod Christ holds in Revelation 2…

It’s absolutely important that what we say about God is true. If the Filioque is false, then Roman Catholics are blaspheming God every Sunday.

And yes, it has practical implications for the believer. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then believers bypass the Son when they receive the Holy Spirit - the believer is connected directly to the Father by the Holy Spirit with no role for the Son. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, then the indwelling of the Holy Spirit connects the believer to all three persons of the Trinity - we are in the Spirit, and through the Son we have access to the Father.

 

[PluniaZ]

Edward Siecienski in, “History of the Filioque”, notes that Gregory Palamas attempted to resolve the teaching of the Greek Fathers that the Holy Spirit proceeds “through the Son” by stating that this referred to the flow of the divine energy. I have illustrated this below:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Ghosty]

This is one area where I believe errors compounded on top of errors, though I don’t believe it really reaches the point of dangerous heresy in most cases.

The Latin teaching, properly understood, follows the Patristic teaching much more closely than the later Byzantine denial of any Personal, eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. The testimony of the Eastern Fathers that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is so explicit and frequent that I have no difficulties accepting the filioque.

This of course doesn’t mean that the filioque is always explained well, nor does it mean that it should be inserted into all versions of the Creed (if only for reasons of sensitivity to the language).

For example, the word used for procession in Greek carries a different connotation than the word used in Latin, and applying “from the Son” in Greek implies that the Son is the source of the Trinity, which is not implied in Latin and is of course false. I think it is best kept out of the Greek versions to avoid the potential for confusion, and for historical sensitivity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[PluniaZ]

This is one area where I believe errors compounded on top of errors, though I don’t believe it really reaches the point of dangerous heresy in most cases.

The Latin teaching, properly understood, follows the Patristic teaching much more closely than the later Byzantine denial of any Personal, eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. The testimony of the Eastern Fathers that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is so explicit and frequent that I have no difficulties accepting the filioque.

This of course doesn’t mean that the filioque is always explained well, nor does it mean that it should be inserted into all versions of the Creed (if only for reasons of sensitivity to the language).

For example, the word used for procession in Greek carries a different connotation than the word used in Latin, and applying “from the Son” in Greek implies that the Son is the source of the Trinity, which is not implied in Latin and is of course false.

Peace and God bless!

I agree. Jesus said the Holy Spirit ἐκπορεύομαι from the Father in John 15:26, and the Greek Fathers always use this word to specifically refer to the Holy Spirit’s exclusive relationship to the Father. The Greek Fathers never use ἐκπορεύομαι to refer to the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Son. And the Nicene-Constantinople Creed of 381 uses ἐκπορεύομαι when it says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

But Jerome translated ἐκπορεύομαι and many other Greek words referring to procession or flowing, in particular προιεναι, as procedere in Latin. Jerome used one Latin word to refer to all these different Greek words with specific meanings in the original Greek. And many of the Greek Fathers do use προιεναι to describe the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son.

I wonder if the Lord is testing us to see if we can overcome the confusion of multiple languages that the human race brought upon itself at Babel.

 

[PluniaZ]

Actually it seems that ἐκπορεύομαι was used by the Greek Fathers to refer to the relationship of the Holy Spirit through the Son:

"The Orthodox Orient has, however, given a happy expression to this relationship with the formula dia tou Uiou ἐκπορεύομαι (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son). St Basil already said of the Holy Spirit: “Through the Son (dia tou Uiou), who is one, he is joined to the Father, who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, XVIII, 45, Sources chrétiennes 17 bis, p. 408). St Maximus the Confessor said: “By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ἐκπορεύομαι) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)” (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C). We find this again in St John Damascene: "(o Pathr) aei hn, ecwn ex eautou ton autou logon, kai dia tou logou autou ex eautou to Pnewma autou ἐκπορεύομαι”, in English: “I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354; cf. PG 94, 848-849 A). This aspect of the Trinitarian mystery was confessed at the seventh Ecumenical council, meeting at Nicaea in 787, by the Patriarch of Constantinople, St Tarasius, who developed the Symbol as follows: “to Pneuma to agion, to kurion kai zwopoion, to ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ἐκπορεύομαι” (Mansi, XII, 1122 D).”

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

 

[Ghosty]

Yes, through the Son can work in this case because it differentiates the manner of procession, but simply using “and the Son” is where the confusion can come up in the Greek.