The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: For the Orthodox

[Ghosty]

I thought that "ἐκπορεύεται" means proceed and that “proienai” means “sent”?

No, there is no word in English or Latin which means the same thing as ἐκπορεύεται. It’s a term that simply can’t be translated directly. Proceed is identical in meaning with “proienai”, and even in the Greek Fathers it is said that the Holy Spirit is “proienai” from the Father and the Son.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

I thought that "ἐκπορεύεται" means proceed and that “proienai” means “sent”?

Ekporeusai does not mean “proceeds.” It means “originates.”

Let me give you a concrete example. Imagine a relay race. At the point of origin A, a racer runs with a baton. At point B, the racer from point A hands the baton to a racer at point B, and the latter racer begins to run. At point C, the racer from point B hands the baton to a racer at point C, and the latter racer begins to run. Etc., etc. etc. It is perfectly correct to say that the baton proceeded from point A, point B, point C, etc. But it can ONLY be correctly stated that the baton originated from point A.

That is the difference between ekporeusai, on the one hand, and procedit or proienai, on the other. And it is a very important difference if East and West are to understand each other.

As brother Ghosty stated, there is really no word in Latin that is equivalent to ekporuesai. The only word in Latin that could be translated as “originate” would be a word that also translated to “beget.” So the Latins obviously couldn’t do that, since “beget” is predicated of the relationship between the Son and the Father alone.

And no. Proienai does not mean “to send.” The Greek word for “send” is pempo.

Unlike Latin, English and Greek distinguishes between “originates” and “proceeds.” So the Easterns and Orientals should stop using the word “proceeds.” The Latin Creed is already properly translated - the Greek Creed is not.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Actually, a much better illustration was the one given by St. John Damascene: The example of one torch being lit from another torch which is lit from an original torch (the original torch being the Father, the middle torch being the Son, and the last torch being the Holy Spirit). The fire proceeds (Latin procedit or Greek proienai) from both the first and second torch, but it can only be correctly stated that the fire originates (Greek ekporeusai) from the first torch.

To repeat, that is the difference between ekporeusai, on the one hand, and procedit or proienai, on the other. And it is a very important difference if East and West are to understand each other.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Changing it to per filium would be a big move in that it would clarify the meaning.

Could you please clarify for us how per filium clarifies the distinction between procedit/proienai and ekporeusai?

The arguement of the Orthodox you are speaking of is not that it is not eternal but rather that it is not essential. They argue that it is an energetic procession from the Father through the Son but it still remains eternal since the energy of God is eternal.

I’ve met many EO who argue that the Son is related energetically to the Holy Spirit only in the TEMPORAL manifestation. Or that the HS is only manifested TEMPORALLY by the Son. That’s erroneous from the perspective of their Fathers.

But the argument itself does not make sense to me as an Oriental. How do you divide Divinity into an essential origination and an energetic origination? Even if taken in terms of procession, it doesn’t make sense. Can you explain it? I imagine you might say, “It’s a mystery.” And I would respond that if it’s really a mystery, how can the EO assert that there is such a division within the Godhead in the first place? The EO accuse the Latins of delving into the Mystery too much, but isn’t it really the case that it is the EO who have done so as a response to the Latins? So far, it seems this division is only rhetorical, not dogmatic, within EO’xy, so it shouldn’t be a problem for the EO to re-examine itself on the matter.

As stated in a previous post, the post-schism medieval Eastern Fathers based their criticism on the Latin teaching on a perception that the Latins taught that the Father and Son BOTH originate the Holy Spirit. With an understanding that the Latins do indeed affirm that the property of “originating from” belongs to the Father ALONE, perhaps they can let go of the rhetoric that divides the Godhead into an “energetic origination” and an “essential origination.”

Blessings

 

[josie_L]

**I’ve met many EO who argue that the Son is related energetically to the Holy Spirit only in the TEMPORAL manifestation. ** Or that the HS is only manifested TEMPORALLY by the Son. That’s erroneous from the perspective of their Fathers.

Hi Mardukm, what the heck does this mean? God bless.

 

[josie_L]

Okay, if you want to call it that, by all means. Eucharisted has been known for his inflammatory tone on more than one occasion.

In Christ,
Andrew

Eucharisted is harmless.

 

[josie_L]

Exactly my point.

Your point is biased.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

Hi Mardukm, what the heck does this mean? God bless.

I am an Oriental, not an Eastern. Such ontological distinctions within the Godhead have no meaning to me so it would be hard for me to explain it.

But as far as I know, it is the manner by which many Easterns (I can’t confidently say “all”)take into account the early patristic witness that the Holy Spirit originates (ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son, or that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son. These Easterns, based on the distinction between Essence and Energy, claim that only the Energy proceeds from the Son, but not the Essence. Both the Essence and Energy originate or proceed from the Father, but only the Energy proceeds from the Son (and the Son is not related to the origination of the HS at all). This energetic procession is otherwise known as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit (what Latins would call “Grace”).

My whole problem with that rhetoric is that it makes an actual ontological distinction between Essence and Energy within the Godhead. Orientals only accept one ontological distinction within the Godhead - the distinction of Persons.

I think modern EO try to get around the problem of creating another ontological distinction within the Godhead by claiming that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit occurs only temporally. The problem is that their own sources assert that the manifestation occurs eternally. I think there is a better chance of reconciling the Latin understanding with the medieval Eastern understanding that the manifestation occurs eternally, rather than with the modern Eastern understanding that the manifestation occurs temporally.

Blessings

 

[josie_L]

Dear sister Josie,

I am an Oriental, not an Eastern. Such ontological distinctions within the Godhead have no meaning to me so it would be hard for me to explain it.

But as far as I know, it is the manner by which many Easterns (I can’t confidently say “all”)take into account the early patristic witness that the Holy Spirit originates (ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son, or that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son. These Easterns, based on the distinction between Essence and Energy, claim that only the Energy proceeds from the Son, but not the Essence. Both the Essence and Energy originate or proceed from the Father, but only the Energy proceeds from the Son (and the Son is not related to the origination of the HS at all). This energetic procession is otherwise known as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit (what Latins would call “Grace”).

My whole problem with that rhetoric is that it makes an actual ontological distinction between Essence and Energy within the Godhead. Orientals only accept one ontological distinction within the Godhead - the distinction of Persons.

I think modern EO try to get around the problem of creating another ontological distinction within the Godhead by claiming that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit occurs only temporally. The problem is that their own sources assert that the manifestation occurs eternally. I think there is a better chance of reconciling the Latin understanding with the medieval Eastern understanding that the manifestation occurs eternally, rather than with the modern Eastern understanding that the manifestation occurs temporally.

Blessings

I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the words “temporally”, “essence”, and “energy” but I get the geist of it. Thank you Mardukm and many blessings.

 

[Justy90]

Your point is biased.

Your whole premise is biased.

 

[Steven_John]

I realise you are all very educated debaters, I am just a pleb.

I was raised in lantern rite and have always felt out over the issue that the son was where the spirit came from.

So much so i would question My Father as to what was wrong with me seeing His spirit through the Son.

I moved way away from Catholic life i guess because the people around me told me i did not understand what was right and was not submitting to blind faith.

I saw myself as bad, dirty, wanted by My Father but built so wrong i would never be any use to anyone. I went way out in the darkness rebelling against the deplorable person i was.

One day My Father sent a nun to me who would openly discuss where i was at, and not once told me i needed blind faith. After she gained my trust i told her Yeshua (pbwh) is more like my Brother than My Father.

She spouted and what is wrong with that? and kissed my cheek. My heart became a blaze of passion that as it is in the bible i could be and need not have blind faith outside of the word.

I came back and He has done great things through me and i was comfortable in Him that although i was different i was not the dirty scum that i once thought i was.

Many years later, in fact very recently i met an eastern Catholic here on CAF who had some serious problems accepting Muslims pray to the same G-d. He is now banned but my love for him led me to look into where he was coming from.

A side to him in the process i learned of eastern Catholics are a little like me, wow i am not alone in this world.

I had looked for these people in Muslims, protestants etc.

Found things in common and things in difference.

I would seriously urge all Latin rite Catholics to be ready to explain the creed clearly and not push blind faith.

The Father is the substance that the son and spirit are from and through them we see Him.

My Father had me go on a wonderful journey by the words of those who said i just needed blind faith, but the way i felt inside from that witness i would not wish on even my enemy’s.

 

[AdrianP]

Why we cannot read the Nicene Creed debates that were sanctioned by Pope at that time? For this kind of information we need revelations and not debate.

 

[jimmy]

But the argument itself does not make sense to me as an Oriental. How do you divide Divinity into an essential origination and an energetic origination? Even if taken in terms of procession, it doesn’t make sense. Can you explain it? I imagine you might say, “It’s a mystery.” And I would respond that if it’s really a mystery, how can the EO assert that there is such a division within the Godhead in the first place? The EO accuse the Latins of delving into the Mystery too much, but isn’t it really the case that it is the EO who have done so as a response to the Latins? So far, it seems this division is only rhetorical, not dogmatic, within EO’xy, so it shouldn’t be a problem for the EO to re-examine itself on the matter.

It is dogmatic I am pretty sure. To reject the theology of the essence/energy distinction would be heresy from the EO perspective.

The essence/energy distinction is necessary according to the EO perspective because there is the problem of God’s transcendence and His immanence. If you deny the distinction then you either fall into denying that we have no participation in the divine nature or that we are swallowed up by the divine essence. The distinction basically says that there is a real participation in God. It is a serious question that must be dealt with. Where the west comes in is with the idea of created Grace. The EO would say that Grace is uncreated and so we have a real participation in God.

The Greek word energeia for energy is also translated as act. It is associated with the will of God. In all of God’s actions it is from the Father through the Son in the Spirit.

As stated in a previous post, the post-schism medieval Eastern Fathers based their criticism on the Latin teaching on a perception that the Latins taught that the Father and Son BOTH originate the Holy Spirit. With an understanding that the Latins do indeed affirm that the property of “originating from” belongs to the Father ALONE, perhaps they can let go of the rhetoric that divides the Godhead into an “energetic origination” and an “essential origination.”

Blessings

The essence/energy distinction isn’t based on the filioque. It is associated more with ontology. What is your relationship to God? Can you have

Yes, as a fellow Oriental, that would be my understanding too. But Easterns have a different mentality and consider Eternity to belong to God alone (they distinguish between Eternity, Aeveiternity, and temporal reality). In any case, I did not say merely participation in Eternity. I said participation in an eternal action of the Father (the Origination/Procession/Manifestation of the Holy Spirit).

Through the energy of God we participate in the eternal act (energy) of God. Yes, eternity is a characteristic of God alone but through participation in Grace/energy we participate in eternity.

 

[mardukm]

It is dogmatic I am pretty sure. To reject the theology of the essence/energy distinction would be heresy from the EO perspective.

I’m not saying to reject the essence/energy distinction. I’m not saying to reject anything (and I never did). We, as Orientals, recognize the essence/energy distinction as well, but we don’t make it an ontological reality within the Godhead, because God is simple, as all the Oriental Fathers testify. What I’m proposing is to affirm the essence/energy distinction, while recognizing that the Eastern development on the teaching (i.e., that it is an actual ontological distinction) as a development unique to the Eastern Byzantine Tradition without trying to impose it on anyone else. From that perspective, it can be recognized that the theology Latins have regarding filioque is likewise orthodox, and likewise unique to the Latin Tradition that shouldn’t be imposed on anyone else.

The essence/energy distinction is necessary according to the EO perspective because there is the problem of God’s transcendence and His immanence. If you deny the distinction then you either fall into denying that we have no participation in the divine nature or that we are swallowed up by the divine essence. The distinction basically says that there is a real participation in God.

Latins admit as much without using that language. My point is that it has no place in the theology of the Trinity. It belongs properly to soteriology. One can distinguish between Essence and Energy without imposing such an ontological distinction within the Godhead.

It is a serious question that must be dealt with. Where the west comes in is with the idea of created Grace. The EO would say that Grace is uncreated and so we have a real participation in God.

That whole issue is a matter of terminology, and the polemical argument that uses it is not worth the paper on which it is printed. The term “created” when used with “Grace,” according to the Latin Tradition, does not refer to Grace as Easterns understand it (i.e., Energy), but only to the effect of that Grace within the creature, as brother Ghosty has explained so well in the past.

The essence/energy distinction isn’t based on the filioque.

The development within Eastern Byzantine Christendom is.

It is associated more with ontology. What is your relationship to God?

Our ontology. But not God’s. There is no ontological distinction in the Godhead except the distinction of Persons.

Through the energy of God we participate in the eternal act (energy) of God. Yes, eternity is a characteristic of God alone but through participation in Grace/energy we participate in eternity.

We, as creatures, don’t and can’t participate in the divine action of eternal origination or eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. Jesus does, and it is part of our understanding of His divinity. That is all I’m saying.

Blessings

 

[jimmy]

I’m not saying to reject the essence/energy distinction. I’m not saying to reject anything (and I never did). We, as Orientals, recognize the essence/energy distinction as well, but we don’t make it an ontological reality within the Godhead, because God is simple, as all the Oriental Fathers testify. What I’m proposing is to affirm the essence/energy distinction, while recognizing that the Eastern development on the teaching (i.e., that it is an actual ontological distinction) as a development unique to the Eastern Byzantine Tradition without trying to impose it on anyone else. From that perspective, it can be recognized that the theology Latins have regarding filioque is likewise orthodox, and likewise unique to the Latin Tradition that shouldn’t be imposed on anyone else.

The EO would agree that God is simple and that within God there is no division but at the same time they will recognize a distinction between essence and energy.

Latins admit as much without using that language. My point is that it has no place in the theology of the Trinity. It belongs properly to soteriology. One can distinguish between Essence and Energy without imposing such an ontological distinction within the Godhead.

I don’t necessarily agree. Theology isn’t just some pointless creed that we profess. There is an actual connection between the dogmas of who Christ is and the nature of the Trinity and how we live out our faith. Soteriology is dependent on theology (knowledge of God). How we are saved reflects our view of God. And I would say that every dogma can be reduced to theology or Christology. So to say that it can be relegated to soteriology without actually beginning with Trinitarian theology or Christology just does not work.

The development within Eastern Byzantine Christendom is.

Can you provide the evidence? From what I have seen there is no connection between the two debates.

 

[mardukm]

The EO would agree that God is simple and that within God there is no division but at the same time they will recognize a distinction between essence and energy.

A distinction between essence and energy does not necessitate a distinction between the essential origination and the energetic origination (or “procession,” as we Orientals and Easterns mistakenly call it) of the Spirit. If one makes such a distinction in the very origin of a Person in the Trinity, then it’s no use to claim that “God is simple.”

I don’t necessarily agree. Theology isn’t just some pointless creed that we profess. There is an actual connection between the dogmas of who Christ is and the nature of the Trinity and how we live out our faith. Soteriology is dependent on theology (knowledge of God). How we are saved reflects our view of God. And I would say that every dogma can be reduced to theology or Christology. So to say that it can be relegated to soteriology without actually beginning with Trinitarian theology or Christology just does not work.

It can’t be doubted that there is a connection between theology and soteriology, but we can certainly still distinguish the two. Essence and Energy are just words, as all the early Church Fathers testify. We can’t actually dogmatically claim that there is such a distinction in the very Nature of the Godhead (as the Byzantines have done), because there is simply no way we can know that. Trinitarian theology is specifically about the nature of the Trinity, and we have a very short list of teachings on the matter inherited from the Fathers: The distinction of Persons (i.e., the distinction between ousia and hypostasis), the relationship of the Persons, and the Father as source of the Trinity. That’s it. We can’t delve into the Mystery beyond that. The distinction of Essence and Energy is not a teaching on the nature of the Trinity. It is simply our own limited way of expressing how we as creatures are able to connect with (or, if you prefer, to be saved by) He who is “Other” than creation.

Can you provide the evidence? From what I have seen there is no connection between the two debates.

Have you ever read the Tomos of the Synod of Blarchanae, or the letter of Mark of Ephesus on the False Union of Florence? It’s all there.

Once again, I must insist that I am not claiming there is anything heretical or to be rejected about the Eastern Byzantine development on the doctrine of Essence/Energies. I am just saying it should not be dogmatized to the point that it is used as a source of division between the Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Here is my perception of the disagreement over Filioque:

The Latin teaching on the matter is this:

**1) ORIGINATION FROM (ekporeusan) is eternally predicated of the Father alone.

1. ORIGINATION THROUGH or PROCESSION (procedere or proienan) is eternally predicated of the Son. Since all the Son has is from the Father, then it can properly be stated that this eternally predicated of both the Father and the Son.
2. MANIFESTATION is also eternally predicated of the Son, where the Person of the Spirit manifests eternally through the Son (and where we experience the Energy temporally).

There is clear testimony from the Fathers for all three beliefs. It is very obvious, as an example among many, from St. John Damascene who states:

1. “We do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son”
2. Describes the ontological relationship of the Father, Spirit and Son, in terms of spring, river and sea, as well as three torches being progressively lit from the first torch.
3. Asserts that the Holy Spirit is manifested through the Son.**

First, permit me to address the Council of Florence’s definition: “We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.”

The problem according to the Easterns is that it makes the Son the “cause…just like the Father.” The issue here is that the Easterns don’t seem to distinguish between “CAUSE” and “SOURCE.” But the Latins do. This is obvious from the Florentine Decree itself, because even though it states that both the Father and Son are Cause, it states that only the Father is Source: “The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit…”

So the Son does not share in the Father’s character as Source – i.e., of “originating FROM” (see #1 above), but He does share in the Father’s character as Cause – i.e., of “originating THROUGH” (see #2 above).

There seems to be two distinct trains of thought on this matter within Eastern Orthodoxy:

The first, based on the writings of the Fathers, is to accept that the Son in some way has a role in the origination (again, wrongly termed “procession” by translators of the text) of the Holy Spirit (i.e., is “through the Son”). This notion seems to be the one proposed by the Synod of Blarchanae and St. Gregory Palamas. But to preserve the dogma that the Father alone is Source, these Eastern sources did something new. These sources distinguished between the eternal hypostatic origination (or “procession,” according to translators), and the eternal energetic origination (or “procession,” according to translators). Before this time, it seems no Eastern Father had ever introduced the Essence/Energy distinction into the debate over Filioque – Patriarch Photius certainly did not in his Mystagogy of the Spirit. This was a development of doctrine in response to a perhaps unavoidable misunderstanding of what the Latins taught regarding Filioque – especially given the language barrier (to wit, the difference between ekporeusai and procedit, and the fact that the Latin understanding of “cause” is different from the Greek understanding of “cause,” the Greeks equating “cause” and “source,” while the Latins do not). In truth, these Eastern Fathers did not need to go this far in the debate over Filioque, since the Latins already admitted that only the Father is the Source of the Trinity.

The second, also based on the writings of the Fathers, is to reject any role of the Son in the origination (wrongly termed “procession” by us Orientals and Easterns) of the Holy Spirit. This notion seems to be obtained from Mark of Ephesus. This, again, is based on his misunderstanding that the Latins taught that the Son shares in the Fathers’ property as SOURCE – i.e., of “originating FROM.” But he never addressed the actual Latin teaching that the property that the Son shares with the Father (Procession) is different from the unique property of the Father as Source (Origination).

It seems to me that when the Easterns and Latins reunited at the Synod of Brest, it was based on a proper understanding of each others’ theology.

The only other matter of concern is the addition of the text. This is actually the main (if not only) concern that Orientals have with Filioque. I believe it would be easily resolved with assurances from the Catholic side that the phrase Filioque will never be imposed on the Oriental Creed, and that it was always, ever, and only intended to be a clarification meant for the Latin Church alone (i.e., not a universal change).

If any change is insisted, I have already expressed what I believe to be the only fair solution here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5739811&postcount=109

Blessings

 

[benidict]

Does this saint have a name and a place where this saying is recorded?

also do the orthodox have different saints than the catholics?

 

[NoWings]

also do the orthodox have different saints than the catholics?

The only ones I can think of are the various Armenian saints (not sure if the Armenian Catholics venerate these… I would assume so).

The main two I can think of would be Saint Dioscorus and Saint Severus of Antioch, who are anathematized. Then again, with the Catholic-OO agreements, even these may be allowed now.

Those are Oriental Orthodox saints. Unsure about Easterns.