yeah im aware of the orthodox position, it seems to stress the ‘monarchy’ of the father, so in such a system the spirit would process either from the father alone or the father thru the son. The west would use a different lens, stressing the consubtantiality of the father and son thus stress one principle from both not from one alone. I just cant find anything to be repudiated.Theological disputes between East and west are not going to be resolved by “gotcha” exmples like this. I think the context would reveal there is a lot more than appears from just this quote, but even if everything is as you presented it, the fact is that the East came to reject (and quite rightly, in my opinion) the idea which came to be dogmatized in the West of the Spirit eternally proceeding from a “principle” formed by the Father and the Son acting together “equally”. That idea simply needs to be repudiated.
The west and east agree on both the monarchy of the Father and on the mission of the Holy Spirit from the Son. It is internal processions that are the topic of disagreement.yeah im aware of the orthodox position, it seems to stress the ‘monarchy’ of the father, so in such a system the spirit would process either from the father alone or the father thru the son. The west would use a different lens, stressing the consubtantiality of the father and son thus stress one principle from both not from one alone. I just cant find anything to be repudiated.
Ubenedictus
I believe, as an Oriental, that St. Cyril is convincing enough that he is teaching filioque. As the official Clafirication on Filioque (promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory) indicates, the Latin procedit is not equivalent to ekporeusai, so your comment that St. Cyril SHOULD be using ekporeusai if he was teaching filioque does not really make sense.There is a problem with this text, if you intend to use it as a defense of the Filioque. The original Greek reads:καὶ προχεῖται παρ’ αὐτοῦ, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός.which roughly translates as “and [the Spirit] is poured forth from him [Christ], just as [he] is from God the Father”. (here is the Greek text from Migne: books.google.com/books?id=Qb7UAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR16-IA5#v=onepage&q&f=false)
It would be rather convincing defense of the Filioque had St. Cyril used a form of the verb ἐκπορεύω (proceeds), but instead, he used the verb προχέω, meaning literally to pour forth. I would wager that it is more connected to the verb ἐκχέω, used in Acts 2:17-18 to denote the economic pouring out of the Spirit by God, than it is to the verb for proceed, ἐκπορεύω, which is used in the Creed.
[bibledrb]Acts 2:17-18[/bibledrb]
Manifestation is not an economic activity. Manifestation, however, is not Procession.I believe, as an Oriental, that St. Cyril is convincing enough that he is teaching filioque. As the official Clafirication on Filioque (promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory) indicates, the Latin procedit is not equivalent to ekporeusai, so your comment that St. Cyril SHOULD be using ekporeusai if he was teaching filioque does not really make sense.
What we know from the letter, regardless of the verb used, was that St. Cyril was describing an ontological relationship (using words such as “inherent” and “according to nature”) between the Son and the Holy Spirit, not a merely economic manifestation.
Blessings,
Marduk
Brother mardukm said, “not a merely economic manifestation.” I do not see how your saying, “Manifestation, however, is not Procession,” is a refutation of what he says. He might be wrong about calling “manifestation” “economic,” however, you both seem to agree that “manifestation” is not a “procession.”Manifestation is not an economic activity. Manifestation, however, is not Procession.
I doubt the revision could enjoin agreement. The problem is that even though Cavaradossi might himself admit that the manifestation is not merely economic, but eternal, there is still a disagreement on the issue “manifestation.”Brother mardukm said, “not a merely economic manifestation.” I do not see how your saying, “Manifestation, however, is not Procession,” is a refutation of what he says. He might be wrong about calling “manifestation” “economic,” however, you both seem to agree that “manifestation” is not a “procession.”
Since you have shown that you disagree with the use of the word “economic,” would you agree with the following (with the removal of “economic”)?
‘What we know from the letter, regardless of the verb used, was that St. Cyril was describing an ontological relationship (using words such as “inherent” and “according to nature”) between the Son and the Holy Spirit, not merely a manifestation.’
Being sent (i.e., in the sense of pouring forth / προχεῖται) is not the same as proceeding (εκπόρευσις), because the latter term includes the notion of origination while the former term does not.I think one could make the argument that despite the difference in wording in the various English translations, the point that St. Cyril is making would be the same. He argues that the Spirit is sent from the Son just as he is from the Father. How is he sent from the Father but by procession? I also see similar argument with the Spirit being the Spirit of the Son. Just as the Son is the Son of the Father, and declares to us what he has received from the Father, so the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and declares to us what he has received from the Son.
You seem to be confusing essence with existence. Certainly, as far as the divine essence is concerned, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one; but they are distinct existentially, that is, as far as their hypostatic reality is concerned, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three. Moreover, it must be remembered that at the level of existence the Father is the sole cause (αἰτίαν) of the other two persons within the Holy Trinity (once again, see St. Maximos’ Letter to Marinus which clearly restricts causation to the Father alone within the Godhead; see also St. Gregory of Nazianzus’ Oration 34:10).In what other way would the Spirit be of the Son if not in an ontological sense?
I would think that Cavaradossi does understand it differently, since the idea that the Spirit receives the divine essence through or from the Son is condemned in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which states that “. . . the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ says in the Gospel.”There is no objective heterodoxy in what the Latins are teaching. Can any Eastern Orthodox deny that the Spirit has His Essence from the Father through the Son? It only seems to be a matter of the Greeks misunderstanding what the Latins mean.
That’s my take on the whole issue so far. I wonder if Cavaradossi understands it differently.
Blessings,
Marduk
If that’s what he really thought, then his opinion is a minority opinion on the matter. The Cappodocian Fathers insisted on the monarchy of the Father because other approaches wind up being modalistic or tritheistic.Cavaradossi,
Have you read Alexander Lossky? He believes that the Father does not cause the Son and the Son is not an effect of the Father. Our terminology is is inadequate here.
Sorry, I meant Vladimir Lossky. In the Image and Likeness of God, pp. 82-83.If that’s what he really thought, then his opinion is a minority opinion on the matter. The Cappodocian Fathers insisted on the monarchy of the Father because other approaches wind up being modalistic or tritheistic.
As your quotations show, Lossky accepts the Father’s causal role in precisely the way it was understood by the Cappadocians, that is, divorced from any temporal connotations.Sorry, I meant Vladimir Lossky. In the Image and Likeness of God, pp. 82-83.
This unique cause is not prior to his effects, for in the Trinity there is no priority and posteriority. He is not superior to his effects, for the perfect cause cannot produce inferior effects. He is thus the cause of their equality with himself.{20} The causality ascribed to the person of the Father, who eternally begets the Son and eternally causes the Holy Spirit to proceed, expresses the same idea as the monarchy of the Father: that the Father is the personal principle of unity of the Three, the source of their common possession of the same content, of the same essence.
- “For He would be the origin (arche) of petty and unworthy things, or rather the term ‘origin’ would be used in a petty and unworthy sense, if He were not the origin of the Godhead (tes Theotetos arche) and of the goodness contemplated in the Son and in the Spirit: in the former as Son and Word, in the latter as Spirit which proceeds without separation.”
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2, 38; P.G. 35, col. 445.
Does anyone really think orthodox, especially protestant converts to the eastern orthodox faith, are ever going to agree with any catholic argument defending the filioque? It’s like trying to debate how long a priest’s beard needs to be. As far as I’m concerned, this whole debate over the filioque is one for the sake of debating at this point.There is no objective heterodoxy in what the Latins are teaching. Can any Eastern Orthodox deny that the Spirit has His Essence from the Father through the Son? It only seems to be a matter of the Greeks misunderstanding what the Latins mean.
Whatever the case may be, watching others debate the filioque makes my head spin.Does anyone really think orthodox, especially protestant converts to the eastern orthodox faith, are ever going to agree with any catholic argument defending the filioque? It’s like trying to debate how long a priest’s beard needs to be. As far as I’m concerned, this whole debate over the filioque is one for the sake of debating at this point.
That seems like a rather unfair and broad generalization. How “Protestant” one is before converting has nothing to do with one’s attitude toward the filioque; if anything, Protestant converts are more likely to privately believe that it is an acceptable opinion, since most Protestants would have confessed the filioque before, as part of the Symbol of Faith which they inherited from the Western Christian tradition (Calvin and Luther, for example, both firmly believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son).Does anyone really think orthodox, especially protestant converts to the eastern orthodox faith, are ever going to agree with any catholic argument defending the filioque? It’s like trying to debate how long a priest’s beard needs to be. As far as I’m concerned, this whole debate over the filioque is one for the sake of debating at this point.
Right. Attaching temporal connotations to the word cause would essentially make all of us Arians, since we would admit that there was a time when the Son was not. I think we can all agree that the type of cause the Father is is a cause that is without priority or posteriority.As your quotations show, Lossky accepts the Father’s causal role in precisely the way it was understood by the Cappadocians, that is, divorced from any temporal connotations.
That is what I thought also. So then, as Lossky states in the same source and page, the Father does not cause the Son and the Son is not an effect of the Father, rather the Father is the cause of their equality:Right. Attaching temporal connotations to the word cause would essentially make all of us Arians, since we would admit that there was a time when the Son was not. I think we can all agree that the type of cause the Father is is a cause that is without priority or posteriority.
This is one of the points that Cavaradossi and I discussed in the past, and I don’t think he ever responded to the following point that I had made, namely:I would think that Cavaradossi does understand it differently, since the idea that the Spirit receives the divine essence through or from the Son is condemned in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which states that “. . . the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ says in the Gospel.”
The Catholic Church would say that the Father is the sole Source of the Son by generation, while He is the sole Source of the Holy Spirit by procession, and with the Son is the Cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit receives His Essence from the Father through the Son. I guess the main sticking point is that the Latins understand that something can be a Cause of existence without being the Source (as one of the Cappadocians had affirmed - one is cause without cause, while another is cause from cause).That being said, the Holy Spirit in Eastern Orthodox doctrine is held to exist through the Son, but this notion corresponds to the Spirit’s manifestation or pouring forth through the Son and does not concern His reception of existence and essence from the Father as the Council of Blachernae taught in its anathemas. Receiving existence - on the other hand - concerns causation, and of course the Orthodox have always affirmed that the Father - as as I said in an earlier post - is the sole cause of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), while He is also the sole cause of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν).