www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Filioque: Dogma, Theologumenon or Error?

Ghosty,

Given that, what do you think of John Montenero's defense of the Latin doctrine given at Florence? He was, after all, their main spokesman there. As I pointed out, he says that the person of the Holy Spirit is from the person of the Son. "Person" = "Hypostasis."

God bless,
Jason

Ecce Jason: Most of what Montenero said is precisely what Myles and I have been saying, near as I can tell. The particular part you've asked me to comment on is that he said that the Person of the Holy Spirit is from the Person of the Son.

To answer that I point back to the difference between "ek" and "ex". In Latin, when it is said that something is from (ex) something, it doesn't mean that what's coming from is derived from. To use a well known example, we say that the Pope can speak "ex cathedra" (from the chair). In no way are we saying that the chair is the source of the Pope's words, nor are we even relating the chair to the Pope's words in any particular way. The chair is just kind of there, really.

In light of this, when we say that the Person of the Holy Spirit is from the Person of the Son, we are meaning it in a non-derivative sense, or as Myles put "adverbial". Since the Holy Spirit is never not the Person of the Holy Spirit, and the Person of the Holy Spirit is never incomplete, any time the Spirit proceeds (in the sense of manifesting) from the Son He must proceed with his full hypostasis and being "from the Son". To use the previous example of ex cathedra, when the Pope gives a speech ex cathedra, the whole speech comes ex cathedra, or literally "from the chair". Again this in no way implies that the speech is derived from the chair.

I can't say for certain, but I don't think Montenero was ever intending to say that the Holy Spirit derived anything from the Son, or that the Son was somehow a necessary component to the processing by the Father. He seems to be saying that the Holy Spirit receives His person and being "from the Son" in the sense I refer to above, in the sense that He is from the Son but not by the Son. Of course he states that the hypostasis and being come from the Son (adverbally), because to say otherwise would be to imply that the Holy Spirit somehow only symbolically comes from the Son, and the Holy Spirit is never a symbol, but a real Person. Again, how odd would it be to say that the Son manifests the Holy Spirit, but he doesn't manifest the Person of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is a Person after all, not an Energy, even when manifested Energetically.

In short, I don't see anything immediately troubling with Montenero's words, because Latin would require more modifiers to indicate that he was speaking derivatively and not adverbally. A perfect example of this is when Thomas Aquinas says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, but from the Father "principally and properly". Those added modifiers indicate that the procession from the Son is in a general sense, or manifesting to use a Palamite expression, while the procession from the Father is a unique kind, unrelated to the meaning of the Son's processing, given the broadness of Latin words.

In the same sense, if one was to say that a speech was given "principally and properly ex cathedra", it would indicate that the speech originated in the being of the chair itself, and that the person talking was just acting as the voice for the chair. Creepy thought, actually :p

Incidently, this is why Latins have always insisted that "through the Son" is a proper explaination of what's being said. After all, if the whole hypostatis and being of the Holy Spirit passes through the Son, then the whole hypostasis and being of the Holy Spirit come from the Son, in the same way that when I leave Portland by driving through it, I've come from Portland when I reach my destination.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Okay, so in the phrase "proceeds from the Son," both "proceeds" and "from" have different meanings for the Latins? Do we all mean the same thing by "the Son?"

In all seriousness, though, it seems to me that Montenero is pretty clear about what he means when he says that the person of the Spirit is from the person of the Son. He says: "If one person is from another he is said to receive being and existence from another, which is what Basil and Epiphanius meant when they wrote that the Spirit has being from the Son." Again, leaving aside questions about Montenero's interpretation of Basil and Epiphanius, Montenero says here that the Person of the Spirit receives being and existence from the Person of the Son. The Son does not just receive and then manifest an already existing Spirit, but rather the Spirit receives being and existence from the Son -- in fact, if the procession from the Son is a different procession, then there seem to be two processions going on here, contrary (once again) to what the Latins decreed at Florence. Rather, it is exactly as has already been indicated: the Father and the Son together project the Spirit's Person (hypostasis) into existence. The Son receives this ability "also" from the Father, which is why the Father is still the "principle without principle" and the sole fount or origin of deity; the Son's ability to project the Spirit comes from the Father, but even so the Son also gives being and existence to the Spirit's Person. Our reading continues to seem to be the most consistent with the actual wording of the Florentine decree, with the words of the discussion that resulted in that Florentine decree, with the interpretations of scholars that I'm aware of, and is even consistent with the clarification on the filioque. It just seems to me that yours continues to have to retreat, to perform some sort of verbal gymnastic, and to not take the testimonies of prominent Latin theologians at face value. This is why I don't quite buy it.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Ok Jason I know I said I wouldn't but I will.

First point:

His Grace John in his critique of the Vatican Clarification on the filioque reminds us that according to St Maximus the Confessor the filioque does not posit a second cause in the Trinity. Moreover he makes the key point that:

There is a difference between cause, source and principle. Even more difference than one might think given that Zizioulas uses the words source and principle in the adverbial sense and St Thomas Aquinas uses principle as a substantive (Q36 art.4--sorry for those who have been watching this thread I used the wrong word before but the semantics are the same)--indeed he critiques the use of principle and source in the sense Zizioulas is using it.

However, the important thing is that unless source or principle are used as adjectives they cannot be predicated to the essence. This rules out modalism as Zizioulas points out in 'One Single Source' 2:7. However, it does open the door for the Thomistic interpretation of the filioque.

Zizioulas' words illustrate how the concept of principle and cause can co-exist without doing violence to the Monarchia of the Father, which is what Thomistic Triadology attempts to demonstrate.

Thomas is not making the Son a cause Summa Theol.Q36 art 3 should make this explicit for therein St Thomas states that the Father spirates through the Son. The Father and Son are a principle yes, but the Father is the sole cause . As Zizioulas notes in 'One Single Source' 2:4:

When St Thomas uses the filioque, as explained in Summa Theol. Q36 art.4, he uses it to describe the impersonal way in which the Son participates in the Spirit's procession. The Father alone is 'Cause' but the Father and the Son can be said to be 'principle' without doing damage to this truth and Aquinas' aim is explicitly said to be the illustration of this fact in Summa Theol. Q36 art.4. This brings him into line with His Grace John's words in 'One Single Source' 3:1:

God love you
Myles

The Holy Spirit as hypostasis does not "pass through the Son"; rather, He shines forth or is manifested through the Son as divine energy. In other words, the eternal energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son has nothing to do with the Spirit's hypostasis (either with His existential origin or with His being as "person"); instead, it concerns the consubstantial communion of the hypostases within the Godhead. The Spirit shines forth through the Son in the divine energy as grace, and so He does not receive his hypostasis either from or through the Son.

Apotheoun: My understanding has always been that Grace is an Energy of God that is common to all three Persons, as are all Energies, due to the sharing of Divine Essence. Now I know that the Holy Spirit can show forth Energetically, i.e. actively, but as an Energy? The Holy Spirit that manifests from the Son is not the Holy Spirit as we know Him properly, but an Energy called the Holy Spirit, perhaps synonymous with the Energy of Grace? I always thought that the Manifestation of the Holy Spirit is what permits the Holy Spirit to communicate Grace, which is a Divine Energy.

This is new to me, and a bit confusing. Perhaps I have misunderstood Palamite theology. Do you have any resources that specifically deal with the Holy Spirit as a Divine Energy?

On this point I can say that Latins don't believe that the Holy Spirit receives His Hypostasis from or through the Son either, in a derivative sense, but that the Son receives the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit in being begotten by the Father. If this were not the case, the Holy Spirit would not be refered to as the "gift" from Father to Son. When Latins say that the Holy Spirit receives His being and existance from the Son, we're saying that He manifests from the Son lacking nothing.

This is why the Latins were so insistant that the Father is the "sole source of deity, that is of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", and that the fact that the Son receives the procession (general meaning) of the Holy Spirit from the Father does not take away from that. The procession from the Son (general moving forward) is fundamentally different from the procession from the Father (as from a derivative source and origin), and represent two different Hypostatic properties, but are also part of only one "motion", hence there is a single procession (general meaning).

For a limited physical representation, imagine a bullet passing from a gun and through a watermelon. We have one procession (moving forward), but the way the bullet proceeds from the gun is fundamentally different from the way it proceeds from the watermelon (origin/source versus general procession). The water melon does not shoot the bullet, but the whole bullet comes from the watermelon just as surely as it comes from the gun. Furthermore, the watermelon receives the procession of the bullet from the gun, not from itself. Hence we have two fundamentally different types of proceeding while still only having a single procession (moving forward, general meaning).

In other words, the Son receives from the Father's begetting the property of manifesting the Holy Spirit, just as the Holy Spirit is processed (derivative source) from the Father in the same "instant" and "given" to the Son to eternally manifest (process in the general sense). This is why Aquinas says that the Holy Spirit, the Hypostasis, exists "between" the Father and the Son. The processing by the Son is wholly dependant on the Father's unique processing of the Holy Spirit and begetting of the Son.

The only thing that confuses me is the Holy Spirit as Divine Energy, which I may be misunderstanding. If the Holy Spirit is an Energy as well, that definately puts a kink in the comparisons. I'll await further information on that.

Peace and God bless!

The divine energy is common to all three hypostases, but the Spirit can be spoken of in a unique way as divine energy, because when the Spirit is imparted to the saints, He is not received as hypostasis, but as divine energy, for it is not possible for two hypostases, i.e., the hypostasis of the Spirit and the hypostasis of a man, to become one. There is only one hypostatic union, and that occurred in the incarnation of the Logos.

This is confirmed by what St. Gregory Palamas said when speaking about the divine energy, for ". . . 'It is not by measure that the Spirit is given to Christ by God the Father' (cf. John 3:44). [And] St. John Chrysostom explains this passage when he states: 'Here Spirit means the energy of the Spirit. For all of us receive the energy of the Spirit by measure, but Christ possesses the Spirit's entire energy in full and without measure. But if His energy is without measure, how much more so is His essence.' By calling the energy Spirit -- or, rather, the very Spirit of God -- as the Baptist did, and by saying that the energy is without measure, Chrysostom showed its uncreated character. Again, by saying that we receive it by measure he indicated the difference between the uncreated energy and the uncreated essence of God. For no one ever receives the essence of God, not even if all men are taken collectively, each one receiving in part according to his degree of purity. Chrysostom then goes on to reveal another difference between the uncreated essence and the uncreated energy, for he says, 'If the energy of the Spirit is without measure, how much more so is His essence." [St. Gregory Palamas, "One Hundred and Fifty Chapters," no. 95]

Thus, the Holy Spirit as He is manifested by Christ is often called divine energy, because this is how the Spirit is received by the Son from the Father, and how He is received by the saints through the Son, for no one can receive the Spirit's hypostasis itself, and to even suggest that this is possible is to fail to grasp the nature of the distinctions between essence (ousia), person (hypostasis), and energy (energeia) within the Godhead. Therefore, the Spirit does not shine forth hypostatically through the Son, but energetically, and that is why the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son is called an eternal energetic manifestation.

In other words, the Spirit does not proceed as person (hypostasis) from or through the Son, and to say that He does exhibits confusion in connection with the hypostatic origin of the Spirit and His existence, which comes only from the Father, with the communication of the divine essence (ousia) among the three hypostases, which is revealed and manifested to us only through the divine energies. Once again the West is failing to distinguish between essence (ousia) and hypostasis within the Godhead.

Standing by what I said earlier in relation to Metropolitan Zizioulas' well-rounded appraisal of the Vatican Clarification on the filioque where I demonstrated that the filioque taken in the substantive as one principle according to the teaching St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theol.Q 36 art.4 applies only to oneness of the Divine Essence and thus: a) Makes the Western understanding of the filioque, as His Grace states, true and b) does not transgress against the truth of the Monarchia of the Father. I add this in light of Apoutheon's latest post:
Aquinas and Palamas on grace by Fr Louis Bouyer [praiseofglory.com]

East and West can co-exist. There is no reason for us to continue this debate any longer. The filioque is fine on the level of essence and thats where the West would have it. It might affect our views of grace but as Bouyer points out in this extract from his 'Introduction to Spirituality' ultimately that amounts to little. Neither Thomism or Palamism can be demonstrated to be heretical that much has become certain from this contest of verbal gymnastics. Accordingly, why don't we put this thread to rest? What purpose does it serve to insist further that Thomism is wrong when both Ghosty and I have demonstrated that the Western filioque operates on essential level with the Father as 'cause' and the Son simple as 'principle' in a way Metropolitan Zizioulas grants is acceptably orthodox?

This thread is finished, at least for me, I bid whomever choses to post here further all the best.

God love you
Myles

Myles,

Just a friendly reminder: there is no concept of "created" grace in the Eastern tradition, because deifying grace (i.e., deifying energy) is God Himself as He exists outside of His ineffable essence.

The idea that grace could be "created" makes no sense in the Eastern tradition, because it would be like saying that there is a "created" God.

Fr Bouyer explains what the West means by created grace, which as you well know has a slightly different definition than the gift of Uncreated Grace aka God himself.

I'm well aware of the difference between East and West and I respect those differences as does Fr Bouyer in his article. The Eastern and Western presentations of the Dogma of the Trinity are not mutually exclusive and neither of them results in any errors. East and West just explain the same mystery from two different standpoints and my sentiments on the matter coincide with Fr Bouyers: The Catholica is more than big enough for both views.

God love you
Myles

As an Eastern Christian I will never accept the idea that the Son is a "principle" within the Trinity, because to confess the Son as a "principle" is to confess either ditheism or Sabellianism.

Moreover, I don't accept your interpretation of Metropolitan John's brief essay on this topic, because he is not allowing for the idea that the Son can be a "principle" within the Trinity, but is merely pointing out that the use of the word "cause" (aitia) by the Cappadocian Fathers was intended to rule out precisely that idea. Thus, for the Cappadocians it is the Father alone who is cause, source, and principle within the Godhead, and they taught this in order to refute the Eunomians who were teaching that the divine essence -- what Eunomius called "ingeneracy" -- was the principle and source of divinity.

Apotheoun: Don't worry, I would never suggest that anyone could receive the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. I'm fully aware of the fact that humans partake of the Divine through Energy, and not through any possession of the Essence. Being "filled with the Holy Spirit" does not mean that the Holy Spirit is living inside us as a Person.

The quote you used, though, doesn't settle the question for me. Yes, the Son receives the Energy of the Spirit, because the Energy of the Spirit is common to all Persons of the Trinity, as it's the Divine Energy. I don't see how that means that the Son's only "connection" with the Holy Spirit is the Energy of the Holy Spirit. The statement seems to be rather open-ended, dealing only with the fact that the Son has all the same Energy, Energy without measure, as the Holy Spirit.

I don't see how this is refering to the Holy Spirit as Energy at all, but rather the Energy belonging to the Holy Spirit, the Divine Energy. Palamas even stresses this by drawing the Energy of the Spirit as a parallel for the uncreated, or Divine, Energy. The Holy Spirit isn't being called an Energy, near as I can tell yet, but only the Energy of the Spirit is being refered to, which would include all of the Divine Energies, such as Grace, and would be shared by the Son by virtue of sharing the Divine Essence.

This doesn't seem to speak at all of the Hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit, nor to contradict the Western view.

To quote St. Basil:

This seems to speak of the Hypostasis and Essence, not of the Energy, as the creature can partake of the Divine Energy, and the partaking of the Holy Spirit by Creation here is ruled out, even while saying "through the Son".

It seems to say that the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is connected through the Son to the Father, because soon afterwards St. Basil says:

Participation in the Energy of the Holy Spirit (Grace and Knowledge) allows us to recognize the Son and the Father, but that is necessarily a different kind of relationship than the one that follows, and the one described in the previous quote. Again, participation by Creation in the procession of the first quotation is explicitely ruled out.

Do you have other quotes that are more clear? I don't think this particular one illustrated for me what you intended it to, as I already understand that the Energy of the Holy Spirit, and not the Hypostasis, is what is communicated to creation

Peace and God bless, and pray for my humble mind as I try to process this stuff.

The quotation from St. Basil supports only the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son in the divine energy, i.e., the communication of the divine essence among the three hypostases, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a "procession" of the Spirit's hypostasis. St. Basil does not use the term ekporeusis at all in his treatise "On the Holy Spirit," thus, your view that the Son has some type of involvement in the hypostatic procession of the Spirit has no support.

This once again shows that the East and the West have a fundamentally different view of the nature of the Triune God.

The false notion that the hypostasis of the Spirit proceeds or is manifested through the Son, once again posits the Son as a principle, source, or cause, of the hypostasis of the Spirit, albeit in a secondary sense. The manifestation (proeinai) of the Spirit through the Son, involves the shining forth of the Spirit as divine energy, both temporally and eternally. Consequently, I cannot support your position, because you are trying to make the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son into a hypostatic reality, and that is contrary to the theological tradition of the Church.

Let me put this as clearly as I possibly can: the Son has nothing to do with the hypostatic procession of the Spirit.

Ghosty,

Maybe check out Energies of the Spirit: Trinitarian Models in Eastern Orthodox and Western Theology by Duncan Reid. I haven't read that one myself, but I hear that it's very good, and it sounds like it might directly address the issues you're concerned about.

Also, a comment. Regarding the procession of the Spirit, you make an analogy about driving through Portland from some other origin, and you also say: In the watermelon analogy, the flying bullet does not in any sense receive its being or existence from the watermelon; rather, the watermelon is a completely passive "channel" through which the bullet passes. It does, however, qua flying bullet, receive its being in some way from the gun (i.e, the gun makes it a flying bullet). In the driving analogy, your trip does not in any sense receive its being or existence from Portland; rather, Portland is a completely passive "channel" through which your trip passes. It does, however, qua trip, receive its being in some way from the origin (i.e., the trip is a trip by virtue of its being a leaving of an origin). Neither analogy is suitable to express the Latin doctrine as it was defended at Florence. According to the debate at Florence which frames the context for the definition, the Son (1) actively projects the Spirit with the Father, (2) gives to the Person of the Spirit being and existence, and (3) has everything the Father has, including the procession of the Holy Spirit, and this procession is numerically one (there are not two different ones). All three of these points are not captured by your analogies.

A suitable analogy might be something like this: my father buys a gun, takes me to a shooting range, stands behind me and holds the gun together with me as we both take aim, and we pull the trigger together. This analogy captures the fact that the Father is the ultimate source (he has the gun), that he hands over the ability to fire the gun to me (by handing over the gun), that we both actively originate the flying bullet together in numerically one firing (because he continues to hold the gun as well, and pulls the trigger with me), and so on. This analogy seems to capture the features of the Latin doctrine expressed at Florence. Unfortunately, it of course will not be acceptable to the Orthodox.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason