www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Divine Essence/Energies

Dear Apotheoun:

I have held my reply because - you are doing so well.

-ray

Dear Jason�

Apotheoum seems to have done very well in explaining to you that the two theologies are not compatible - yet have the same origin.

Eastern theology solidified at a time when the terms of philosophy were closer to cosmology (the use of physical imagery and likened to physical experiences) and it peaked with the scholastics of the Byzantine Empire and its culture.

Western theology solidified post-Aristotle - when the terms of philosophy solidified on the expression of mental concepts and mental experiences.

They are two different approaches - two different languages.

Two different ways to understand the same - thing.

Both of them are less - than their origin. And are only signs or pointers - back to that wordless origin.

The difficult comes when someone tries to build God through them. The God that will be produced - will always be at odds with whatever God that is produced when they also try to build God from their own theology.

It is a blessing - that each church - has its own form of theology. And it is often overlooked that there are several forms of Eastern theology (Coptic theology is also Eastern and there are several forms of Oriental theology). And it has been a human mistake of past history that the big boys on the block (Orthodox and Latin) have been so self conceited to think that only they (one or the other) was right and anyone else was wrong. The test of �compatibility� between the theology of independent churches - has been a human failure. There is a remedy for this - but I will not mention it except to say that among the Orthodox it is the �first place� of honor given to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

So I will say it again. Each theology must be understood within its own context (culture, time in history, spoken language, terms of philosophy, history, etc) because each theology is its own �language� and no translation into another theology - will be entirely compatible - and eventually end up like Apotheoum said �do violence to the other� in their catophatic forms.

The items which you assumed that I implied - and I did not imply - I will not address. They have nothing to do with our subject.

As to uncreated energies - I continue to maintain that this is intended to be an apophatic image - a negation - of the physical image of created natural forces like wind, water currents, fire, storms, etc� as they shape the creation� so the subject is likened to natural and created energies forming and shaping creation� but is not these created forces. This is done in much the same way that Jesus liken Providence to the invisible force (energies) of wind �You know not where it comes from and where it goes to�. It (uncreated energies) is a way to understand (through a knowable physical likening) what we have no senses to know. It is a very physical and cosmological like way to say it. Eastern! And unless it is taken apophatically - it is also irreconcilable with other portions of Eastern theology which negates all and every attribute to the God nature (admitting no division and an incomprehensible Oneness before even the act of procession).

Be it Eastern or Latin theology - at its final - its peak of understanding - lay this area which - if not melted away by experiential union with God - is incomprehensible and contradictory. That my friend is the limit - of - words. This is where theology itself (the whole) must become apophatic (mere human words) and must cease to be catophatic (assigning specific attributes to God). Where the substitute of �talking about� makes way for the real and direct experience of.

Word of theology are sign. But unlike road signs (which tell us how to get where we want to go) the signs that are theology - tell us were we are once we have already gotten there. They are an imitation - compared to the real thing. We must not confuse the human explanation (words) of what a thing is - for the thing itself. That was the lesson of Socrates. The God that we think God is - is a far cry from what God thinks of himself. That is the ladder of assent where God destroys in us the idol of him we build time and time again. How could it be any other way - we are human - and not able to grasp God. Nothing understands self better than self. God is the only one which fully grasps himself. And even grace - does not violate our human nature for we never ever become God - that we might understand God as he understands himself.

Mister Eckhart was a blend of Eastern and Western theology - he understood both and often spoke a blend of both at once�. and what did it get him? Accusations and misunderstandings from those who could not raise above - words. They prefered to hear themselves and so they could never hear what Eckhart was saying.

Now there is a good litmus test (if you want one) if you can read and understand Mister Eckhart - and find no real problem - you are well on the way to grasping both the theologies of the Eastern church and the Western church. I believe he was the last, in the line of Latin shcholars, who truely was a man of both lungs.

Peace to you.

-ray

Ray,

Thank you for your thoughts. I don't wish to comment much more on this issue, as I believe we are simply talking past one another now. I will simply reiterate only a few brief points and leave it at that.

(1) First, it seems to me that the continued talk about "theological expressions being unable to fully express the Mystery" is one big red herring; of course our expressions can't fully express the Mystery, but that doesn't mean that some of those expressions aren't still wrong. It certainly doesn't mean that they are all okay. If someone were to say (God forbid!) that Christ is a creature, he would of course be terribly mistaken and incorrect, not just expressing the same Mystery in his own finite language. So, the crucial work to be done still remains to determine if the different expressions are orthodox, not just to determine that they're different expressions.

(2) The example you cite of Coptic theologians actually makes my point for me. Nowadays, people have realized that some people who appear to be monophysites and confess the "one nature" of Christ actually mean "one hypostasis" by their terminology, and so therefore say something compatible with orthodoxy although not in the same language. What this means is that they were able to communicate across different theological traditions, translate their terms, and understand that the same thing really was being expressed. That's exactly the kind of work I'm calling for here. We can't conclude a priori that all different expressions are acceptable.

(3) This sort of work has not been done, it seems to me, with regard to the Eastern and Western views of the Trinity. I could cite the many posts on this very forum expressing confusion about this issue, but I needn't do so, because it seems to remain a simple fact that the Western tradition has not adequately explained what it means when it says that the Son is a "cause" of the Holy Spirit (as it does at the Council of Florence), and so on. Metropolitan John of Pergamon points out this very fact himself in his response to the Vatican's clarification on the filioque, and goes so far as to say that this may even be the crucial issue in the discussion. That is why I still think my questions here seek answers beyond "they're saying the same thing in different languages," or "they mean the same thing but they started from different starting points," because those answers are question-begging; that is, they beg the very question I'm asking here, which is: "are they saying the same thing?" This is where I think the work needs to be done, and this is where I've heard little more than suggestions to the effect that it is arrogant to ask such questions. Forgive me if it truly is, but what I have been trying to seek is a real understanding of the issues. Apotheoun's answer, while it did answer questions for me, was not an answer that demonstrated that the two traditions are compatible; rather, his was an answer that they are not compatible, but that the Latin tradition is okay for the Latins. I still think the latter contention also might beg the question (i.e., on what grounds do you say that they are "okay"), but I have not pressed the issue because my thoughts which began the discussion were thoughts about how to address the Western councils as an Eastern Catholic, and he answered those thoughts.

(4) Here is why I think the response that "they are just using different theological expressions" or that "they are coming from different starting points" is potentially dangerous: if that response is used a priori without a demonstrable reason for saying as much, it leads to a slippery slope. Consider the possibility of someone suggesting (God forbid!) that the Arians were really innocent of heresy because their expression that Christ is a creature (i.e., "there was a time when the Son was not") was valid given their starting assumptions and context (i.e., Origenism). Clearly, this would be absurd. We must truly figure out what's being said before we conclude that the expressions are legitimate. As the Ecumenical Councils show, some expressions, regardless of context or language, really are wrong.

(5) Finally, from what I understand, some of Meister Eckhart's ideas were formally condemned by the Church, so I'm not sure if his is a good example to suggest. However, I admit to not knowing much about him. This website [members.aol.com] says that Pope John XXII published a bull condemning some ideas from his works, but of course that's not a scholarly website.

Anyway, thank you again for your time.

God bless,
Jason

Jason,

Let me begin by saying that � over the last few years � I have not been all that interested in trying to reconcile the Latin tradition with the Byzantine tradition; instead, I have focused all of my efforts on assimilating and understanding, to the degree that I can, the Byzantine doctrinal tradition without forcing it in a Latin framework. I have made a conscious effort to learn about the Triadology and Christology of the Eastern Church without reference to Western developments. Now perhaps this effort on my part is misguided, but I simply want to understand the Byzantine tradition on its own terms, i.e., I want to see from within, as a Byzantine, and not as something foreign to my own experience of God.

Clearly the differences between the East and the West are difficult to accept, but I do not believe that communion can be reestablished between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches if the dialogue between them requires either of the partners to repudiate a large portion of their doctrinal tradition. Besides, in a way that transcends my intellectual abilities, I think the two traditions � in spite of apparent contradictions � are really speaking about the same reality.

Now of course there is an inherent difficulty present within the dialogue between the two traditions, because each tradition begins with a different focus and each one has different presuppositions, and so a person who undertakes to judge one doctrinal system with the underlying presuppositions of the other system, will inevitably see what appears to be heresy within the views of the other side in the dialogue. Nevertheless, the desire for the restoration of full visible communion is a good thing, and it must be sought, but it must not involve either of the two traditions having to repudiate what it is that makes it unique.

As far as your comments about a type of dogmatic relativism are concerned, certainly I am not arguing that every possible position is true and acceptable, but I am saying that the two great traditions � which were united during the first millennium � each has a vision of the truth that is compatible with the unity that existed between East and West for nearly a 1,000 years, and so neither side should require the other to renounce something that is fundamental to its living experience of God.

May the Lord bless you,
Todd

Dear Ecce Jason:

Go to the top right of this page - seleclt "search" and then search inside this forum (4.East-N-West) on this phrase...

"doing a study - filoque - need help"

You may find it interesting.


Early on, the Greeks formulated the filoque. And the Latins adopted it from the Greeks.

Within a few years - one of the Greek words involved - had a change in meaning (as words sometimes, over time, come to a slightly diffrent meaning through use).

Quick communication not being a hall mark of the era - news sometimes took a year to travel between Rome (Latin speakers) and Byzantium (Greek speakers)- so the Latins were unaware that the Greek had fine tuned the phrasing and meaning. So the Latins when on thier merry way still using the orginal meaning that everyone agreed upon.

Now to add to things - the word "and" can be taken in two ways. One way is unitive and the other way is additive.

John is going to the store.
Mary is going to the store.

John (is going to the store) and Mary is also going to the store.

Now if John and Mary are not going to the same store - it is additive. Each is doing the same thing ... but not together. "Mary's going to the store" is in-addition-to John's going to the store.

But if John and Mary are going to the same store at the same time (together) it is unitive.... not additive.

Now add to that, that in the orginal Greek (as with Hebrew) that it is one word which can either be translateded as "and" or "but". As 'and' it is unitive or additive - as 'but' it is 'on the other hand'.

Plus the old Greek has dozens of ways to form this "and" - while the Latins have fewer.

So you can see that the nuances of languge became involved. While the Greeks fine tuned things and discared the older formular (which the Latins had adopted) the translatrion into Latin - made it read with a slightly diffrent nuance - anyway. So the Greeks were codeming a way to translate the older Greek (in light of the nenw worod usage) and the Latins (still reading it the old way) could not figure out - why.

The trick is - that with the nenwer meaning of the Greek words involved - the older formular now meant something diffrent than it what it meant when it was first coined.

Neither sidie realizing that the culprit was the shift in the meaning of one or two Greek words - each assumed that the other side was just being nasty for no good reason!

Now here is the way in which I read my RC version.

Additive.

If we considier - just - the father and the holy spirit (the sin not included in this relationship) - then it is the father who sends the holy Spirit.

And if we considier - just - the son and the holy Spirit (the father not included) then we are talking about Jesus during his time on earth when he sent the holy spirit.

It is a little like this...

We have the sun - sending its light - through a windows into a room - and there is a spot of light on the floor.

If we consider - just the sun and the spoot on the floor - the sun is causing the spot on the floor.

But if we do not consider the sun - and all we are concerned with is the window and the sport on the floor - we do say that the window is the cause of the spot on the floor. In this way looked at - the windows is a secondary cause. It is be-cause of the window - that there is a spot of light on the floor.

Now if we take that (window and floor) and now rejoin the sun to it - the sun is the primary cause.

Do you see? Thiis trick of human ways - all depends on which way the 'and' is being used and in what relationships the objjects involved are set to each other (as you can see - they can be set in a few ways and not just one way).

Now in truth, when we are taking 'procession' we are rightfully dealing with the old Greek concept of the method of creation from the simple unity of the Monad (One) to duality and so on and so forth to multiplicity of created natures. I assume you know something about that Greek pattern. Under that concept in the place of Greek philosophy - it is proper to consider that which is created - as a set. That which is un-created (God or Monad) as one �set� and that which is created as another distinct set. The �set� of creation is headed by the first thing created (its pinnacle) which is the Son - and in relation to the Son (disregarding the Monad) it is proper to say that the Holy Spirit (into the world) comes by way of the Son as its cause (not origin - but cause). As such - it is proper to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son - as a cause (but not as origin).

But just try to find a Roman Catholic who understand his own filogue properly! Most need not give it much thoughts. So you can�t blame them.

Cheers.
-ray

That is what most people think - but a short study reveals that Mister Eckhart himself was not comdemned. What was condenmed is the way some people were interpeeting him. So the bull condemns certain ways in which 5 (or was it 11) of his statements could be interpreted. Eckhart was given the opurtunity to 're-cant' these interpretations - which he did - while adding to his re-cant - that these were not his meaning and he himself never held these.

The inquiry wanted to condem him personally but the Pope interceded and only the heritical interpretation - of 5 of his statements were condemned. Interpretations which he himself never held.

-ray

Ray,

Thanks for the additional information. I'll be brief because I think this discussion is running thin (at least it is for me). First, regarding the history of the filioque, I would recommend a book by Professor Richard Haugh (professor of Classics and Religious Studies) called "Photius and the Carolingians," if you can get your hands on it (it's sometimes hard to find). Haugh extensively covers the history of the filioque and explicitly deals with the patristics, including St. Athanasius, to determine whether or not they really ever professed anything like the filioque (he says they didn't, and I tend to think he's right; particularly with Athanasius, we have now discovered that some works that we thought were his really weren't, and so on). Also, if you can possibly find it (this one's even more difficult to get), look for "Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor" by Joseph Farrell. That one will dispel the idea that Trinitarian philosophy comes from the Greek "Monad" philosophy. Furthermore, it's just wrong to speak of the Son as a creation.

Also, the Eastern understanding of the Trinity denies that the Son is even a secondary cause of the Spirit's hypostatic procession.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

??

No need for it to be dispelled - I do not hold it.

Yes. I too give up. There seems to be too much static noise in the line. Communications are down. Confusion has the upper hand.

-ray

Forgive me if I'm over-stepping anything, but I think I may have the "linguistic key" that is part of the hang-up. If I'm wrong, oh well, but it's worth a shot.

I see the issue of "cause" being tossed around a lot here, and it seems to be done with little consideration of what "cause", or rather "causa" means. I don't think it carries the sole implication of "point of origin", but would be better understood as "by way of". In this sense both the Father and the Son are "causes" of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit has only a single origin (the Father). To illustrate it with the actual language, we can say that the Holy Spirit comes "by way of" the Father, and we can also say that the Holy Spirit comes "by way of" the Son, without eliminating the Father, and the Father alone, as the sole source of the Holy Spirit.

Let's use a modern English example. If I'm traveling from Seattle to Nashville, and I pass through Portland, Oregon, we can say two things. The people in Nashville can say "He came to us by way of Seattle", and "He came to us by way of Portland". In both statements, the source, Seattle, remains the same.

This is why after much discussion at Florence, it apparently became clear to both sides that when the Latins said "and the Son", it was the same linguistically (and was always intended to mean) as "through the Son". The documents say "according to the Greeks by cause" because the meaning of the word is "by way of", so that the Holy Spirit comes "by way of the Son, originating in the Father". This view is backed up by Scripture as demonstrated at the Council, and agreed to by the Greeks.

With this in mind, the troublesome and confusing phrase "as from one principle and a single spiration" makes a lot more sense. Since it was already agreed that the Son was "subordinate" to the Father, and that the Son receives from the Father, the main issue was whether or not the Holy Spirit is from two sources, the Father and the Son seperately, or from a single source (the Father, source of all) with the Son only as a "cause" or a "by way of". By saying "by one principle" it seems as though the Council thought it put that baby to rest, but they apparently didn't take into account the future development of language combined with the political factors that would harbor resentment almost immediately after the close of the Council. I don't think the Greeks present were presenting heresy at all, but rather I think they simply understood the Latin term "causa", and it was used to summarize their beliefs in the Latin documentation.

Unfortunately this distinction in the term "cause" is muddied by modern English, and we tend to say things like "the flood was caused by the rain", which does not reflect the full breadth of the term "causa" in Latin, and adds to it the implication of origin which was not the universal implication of the term "causa".

God bless!

Ghosty,

Thank you very much for your well-thought-out response. While it does certainly make me think, there are a few problems I have with it.

First, here are some phrases from the decrees of the Council of Florence, with some emphasis added (my explanations of why these are problematic will follow):

Okay, now on to why I don't think any of this will mesh with your view.

(1) First, the council says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both, as from one principle. It seems to me that this indicates that the procession of the Holy Spirit was viewed as some sort of "cooperation" between the Father and the Son, who together spirated the Spirit in one and the same movement (i.e., they were both sources of the procession, together); thus, I find it hard to adapt this language to your view that the Father ultimately spirated the Spirit, albeit by way of the Son. There seems to me more attributed to the Son here (though I will grant that maybe you can make your view compatible with this piece alone, although I think it'll require some work).

(2) The council says the Son should be signified according to the Latin word "principle," and not only that, it says the Son is principle of the subsistence (hypostasis) of the Holy Spirit just like the Father. So, two points: first, the word "cause" may be possibly interpreted as "by way of," but the word "principle" does not seem to lend itself to this interpretation; second, the phrasing that the Son is a principle "just like the Father" is certainly problematic. The view seems to be that they both play the same role in the procession of the Spirit (and I would maintain that a reading of Scholastic theology during this time period will show that that is exactly what was meant).

(3) The next paragraph is even more problematic. There, the council says that, because the Son has everything from the Father, he also has the procession of the Spirit from the Father, so much so it can even be said (alone, as it is in this paragraph) that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son" (if they were trying to get at the Greek view here, why not at least say through?). Taking this notion in context with the other points about the Son being a principle "just like the Father," and it seems clear that what the council is saying is that the Son shares the same property that the Father shares, namely, the full procession of the Spirit. This is perhaps the most flagrant part of the decrees for Orthodox ears.

(4) Finally, in its decree to the Oriental churches (I believe to the "Jacobites"), the council professes unequivocally that the Spirit proceeds at once from the Father and the Son. Again, especially given the above phrases which create the context for this saying, it seems that the council is holding that the procession from the Father and the Son is identical and immediate. I find it hard to interpret a "by way of" here, if what's being said is that the Spirit proceeds from both at once -- especially in light of the earlier comments.

Other facts are also distressing. First, the Orthodox had already rejected any notion that would even allow the Son to be a secondary, subordinate, or mediate cause of the Spirit's hypostasis (subsistence) at the Council of Blachernae in 1285. At that council, they explained that the Orthodox doctrine of "from the Father through the Son" means not that the Son plays any role in the Spirit's hypostatic origination in the internal life of the Trinity, but that the Son plays a role in the Spirit's origination in the external (although still eternal) life of the Trinity, i.e., in the divine energies. The Spirit proceeds from the Father as sole source, and is manifested in the energies through the Son. Second, there are additional facts such as that the Greeks at the council held out against the filioque for so long that they were running out of food, they wanted to give up on the council and return home numerous times, and they seemed to possibly have agreed to the council's decrees only after realizing that their homeland was under attack and that they were not going to receive military aid from Rome unless they agreed (this was explicitly mentioned to them by the Pope, if I recall correctly); furthermore, Mark of Ephesus was silenced right at the moment that he was likely going to bring up the Eastern notion of the divine energies for discussion at the council, and he (probably not coincidentally) ended up being one of the Orthodox who did not sign the decree.

In any case, there are probably even more things to say about this, but I've already been too wordy, so I'll stop there.

Thanks for your post, and God bless. I do sympathize with the attempt to make Florence compatible with the Eastern doctrine, as I have struggled with that issue for months (as Apotheoun will tell you); unfortunately (as Apotheoun will also tell you), those "struggles" have continuously failed.



All the best,
Jason

Ecce Jason: I will be back on later to do more research and posting, as I have to get to Mass at the moment. If you know of any sources of the discussion of the Council, and the decrees, in Latin, that would be wonderful to have.

As for a quick answer to your "why not just say through", I think it has more to do with the fact that the Latins understood that it meant the same thing in their language, and were more concerned with getting the Greeks to understand that fact then go about changing their liturgies. Arrogance and intransigence? Certainly, but that seems to be the character of both sides throughout the centuries. In defense of the Latins, however, once the understanding was had, there was really no reason to make the change that would require issuing a new decree to change the liturgy in all Latin parishes. I'm sure they thought they had put the problem to rest at that point, and didn't foresee the issue flaring up later. Had they seen what would come of it, it's quite possible they would have simply made the change, as Latins even today generally don't even recite the filioque when celebrating with our Eastern brothers and sisters.

God bless!

Ghosty,

Sure, I can give you a few sources. First, I'll cite some online material (since, of course, that's easiest to access):

(1) The Decrees of the Council of Florence [ewtn.com] (in English -- I don't know where to find them in Latin, but I expect that EWTN is a legitimate enough source; the most relevant portion here is Session 6)

(2) Here [praiseofglory.com] , you can find (about 1/6 of the way down the page) three chapters of The Council of Florence by Joseph Gill, S.J., available online. They are very pro-Latin, but they include a good amount of the actual dialogue that took place at the council. In the second of those chapters, you'll see Gill's admission that Mark of Ephesus was forbidden to mention the Eastern essence/energies distinction at the council (and even the interpreter was silenced when others began asking that Mark be allowed to speak). Gill more or less brushes this off and notes that the Latins "then and now" consider this doctrine wrong. Also, Gill seems (at least in these chapters) to not realize how deeply indebted the Latin position is to Augustinian notions of divine simplicity, and how foreign to the Greeks such Augustinianism must have sounded (Gill tends to paint the Greeks almost as buffoons at places because they don't understand). In the third of those chapters you will also see the emperor occasionally making veiled threats to the Greeks as they continue to refuse union, and you'll also see the Pope emphasize how much military help the Greeks will receive if they will just agree to the doctrinal formulas. (By the way, Gill's work also includes a translation of the council's decree, and it more or less matches the one at EWTN.)

One thing you might notice in Gill's work is the fact that in the second of the aforementioned chapters, the Latins go on to base a lot of their arguments for the filioque on the Scriptures and the Fathers, so...

(3) Photius and the Carolingians by Professor Richard Haugh. This is a real book, not available online. In this book, Haugh traces the development of the filioque doctrine from its early formation to the time of Photius (late 9th century). Inadvertently, he responds to many of the arguments that the Latins make at Florence (as cited in Gill's book). In particular, this book includes a nice appendix of the patristic sources, detailing who really believed what and which works were really authentic and which were spurious. The book as a whole also does a nice job of drawing out the Augustinian assumptions behind many of the Western arguments, showing why they are more or less meaningless to the East.

(4) Byzantine Theology, by John Meyendorff. This book is more of a general overview of a wide array of subjects, but it includes some good stuff on Florence and the filioque. In particular, it notes that many of the participants at the Council of Florence were hardly what one would call "representative" of Eastern theology; in particular, Scholarios was a Thomist, many of the delegates were Barlaamites (a position that had been condemned in the East about a century earlier and which was skeptical as to whether or not divine truths were actually even attainable), Gemistos Pletho had actually ceased being a committed Christian and had succumbed to some form of Platonized paganism (and there are reasons to wonder whether Bessarion, his close friend, had succumbed to the same -- he wrote a manifesto entitled Refutations of the Blasphemies Directed Against Plato which, according to Meyendorff, seems to indicate that he was with Pletho on this), and finally the majority of the delegation was selected from the elite of Constantinople alone.

Finally, two good supplements might be:

(5) The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity\'s Filioque Clarification [praiseofglory.com]

(6) An Orthodox Response to the Pontifical Council\'s Clarification [orthodoxresearchinstitute.org]

That should keep you busy. Enjoy!

God bless,
Jason

Well, since it looks like I won't have time to do the full amount of research I was hoping to do tonight, I'm gonna do the best I can and see if we can at least get started unpacking some of the questions you raised, maybe even putting a few of the pieces in the right place in the process! Before I continue, I must ask out of curiousity what your faith background is. I'm an Armenian, Latin Catholic, raised in a secular-atheistic household. I came to the faith through studying Orthodox Judaism, to boot :p

Anyway, on to the points. I won't necessarily be able to provide clear citations tonight, but I think it will suffice that we put our brains together and see if anything seems to "stick". Since we're not trying to debate eachother down, I don't see a reason to proof-text at this point (plus my eyes are falling out of my skull), so I'll just spew out some Latin-minded stuff and we'll see if it looks right

1) Ok, the concern you raise here to me seems to indicate that you're hearing something akin to "two guys (Father and Son) holding the same hose (spiration) that's spraying the water (Holy Spirit)". I admit that the language is troubling, but upon reflection I don't think that "together with the Son" necessarily indicates a requirement, but rather a simple statement of fact, possibly eternal fact. Ignoring for a moment the issue with the "passivity" of the idea of a "source", let's imagine a garden hose (the Father), united with a spray nozzle (the Son) spraying water (the Holy Spirit). The water undoubtedly comes from the hose; the nozzle could be removed without at all changing the source of the water, and the hose does not depend on the nozzle to put forth the water. When we spray the water, however, it comes from the hose and the nozzle as from a single principle. There are not two streams of water, but one, and the "monarchy" of the hose is preserved, because in the most fundamental sense the water originates from it, but in another sense the water sprays from the nozzle united with the hose (and the nozzle obviously has no water to spray without the hose). Even if the hose and nozzle never come apart, even if they are eternally together, the order is preserved; one does not have to remove the nozzle in order to know it's a nozzle, or to make it a nozzle. Hence, the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father with the Son.

2) In this case, with the above description, principle does seem to lend itself to the "by way of" interpretation, because the Holy Spirit "sprays" from a single point in the eternal unity of the nozzle and hose, but as I showed above that single point of origin (the tip of the nozzle, in this illustration) is fully dependant on the hose. Remove the Father and Son from eternal unity, and you have the Holy Spirit proceeding solely from the Father, but with eternal unity it proceeds from the Father and the Son. Now if I'm understanding hypostasis correctly, and I'm likely not (do I get an instant philosophy degree if I really am?), then the fundamental being of the Holy Spirit (spray) can proceed from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son, but since the Father and the Son are eternally united, the Son together with the Father are the principle of the spray, the hypostasis, the fundamental being.

3) This exception, which I admit seemed huge when I first sat down to think about this problem tonight, now doesn't seem like such an issue at all. I'm certain that this is because I've now lost track of the Eastern thought process of Energies, but I've come this far and I'm going to keep running with it until I pass out!

Yes, the nozzle shares, as an eternal fact, the full procession of the water, even so much that the spray shoots forth from the nozzle eternally, but this is only because the nozzle receieves everything (namely the water, in this particular case) from the hose by virtue of its eternal unity with it. Heat the hose, and the nozzle will get hot, drop the hose and the nozzle will hit the ground as well, put a kink in the hose, and the water will cease to flow from the nozzle just as much as from the hose. For all intents and purposes the hose and the nozzle are one, yet they are wholly identifiable as seperate. Furthermore, the "monarchy" of the Father is preserved, because while the nozzle immediately becomes nothing by dead plastic when removed from the hose, the hose retains all of its charictaristics when the nozzle is removed: it still sprays, get's hot in the sun, flops on the ground when dropped, ect. The nozzle is no longer a nozzle to anything, but a nozzle-shaped piece of plastic waiting for a hose: it receives even its nozzleness, if you will, from being on a hose.

4) If the above holds, then this exception is really moot, I believe, as the Holy Spirit would of course come "at once" from the nozzle together with the hose. The key is not to have the nozzle and hose as eternally seperate, but rather as eternally together, so it's not "at once from this hose here, and that nozzle over there", but rather "at once from this hose-and-nozzle".

Whew, ok. Now keep in mind this was purely to give a fresh presentation of the Latin viewpoint, not to directly address how the Eastern conception works. I'm specifically trying to address the concerns you raised in relation to my point about "cause", and hopefully I've done so without totally damaging the Eastern formulation of the Trinity. I can't even be certain that I've given a perfect illustration of the Latin position, as tired as I am, but reading over my own writing everything computes.

Most importantly, I think it must be said that the hose-nozzle-spray analogy is purely for the purpose of working on the filioque, and not intended as any kind of definative statement about God (no, the Father is not a rubber hose :p )

I'll leave it at this for now, and you can read it, think about it, and then show me all the places I've gone horribly wrong. I'll even let you call me dirty names

Good night, and God bless!

Ghosty,

Thanks for your responses. I haven't read through your latest yet, but I wanted to let you know that it's likely I won't get to it until at least later this evening, if not tomorrow.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

I recommend reading the dogmatic Tomus of the Council of Blachernae (A.D. 1285) in order to better understand the Byzantine rejection of the Latin formulation of the "filioque."

Click here: Tomus [geocities.com]