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

OK.. then answer me - if the procession of the Holy Spirit is a procession of its hypostatic origin - where is it proceeding to? in order that we say it "proceeds"� ?

Is it - proceeding somehow inside God himself - and not into creation??

Impossible.

At least in Western philosophy. And in Eastern theology - there is no procession - unless - it be the procession into creation. The procession of creation - from the Godhead.

What locations exist inside God's nature - that something can proceed from one place to another - inside God's nature?

Please give me no more books. My library is full and knowledge is not the same as understanding. If it were we would understand everything we went out to know - and we find that is not the case for us humans.

This man is a personal friend of mine.
http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/Paul-Nadim-Tarazi/
And I have been the only - Roman Catholic - to be invited twice to private get-together of a select group of some of the top Orthodox theologians of the world (fly in) as a privileged observer and participant in the seminars.

That is not a recommendation of my views - but it should be a testament to my grasp of Eastern Orthodox theology (at least the all-expenses-paid invitation part J ). I have written three unpublished studies on the book of Genesis (my particular area) � and I studied it � in the Hebrew.

So I am not a stranger to Eastern theology, Catholic theology, or Old Testament theology.

On the other hand - I am nobody. Just a guy who loves philosophy, psychology, and theology, especially where they meet.

I enjoy yakking with you. This is all just a discussion and nothing hangs in the balance. It is good excersise for us and not much more than that. We are free to make mistakes and mess things up� but I will not be reading any books just for a discussion - at the same time I do respect the drive that has lead you to read so many in your own pursuit of God. May you always have the discernment to separate the wheat from the chaff.

- - - -


So I present to you three questions.

1) If the procession of the Holy Spirit is regarding his hypostasis origin within God (and not - into creation) � I ask you where is it proceeding from and where is it proceeding to?

2) You seem to imply that it may be possible that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son - in a relationship restricted to - the Son and creation.
Are you?

3) Is the procession of the Holy Spirit we are talking about - in the sense of �procession� as used by SS Gregory, Palamas, and Maximus the Confessor?

because if it is - it is most definitely - a procession into creation as outline in Dionysius Areopagites chapters "Celestial Hierarchy".

-ray

Apotheoun: You are still reading into the words meanings that are not necessarily implied in Latin.

When Gregory was speaking with "except causality", he was not refering to the Latin use of cause as "by way of". How do we know this? Because he admits that the Holy Spirit does proienai from the Son, which is also cause in the sense of "by way of", and also principle as in the excerpt from the Summa I used above. Principle has a variance in meaning in Latin that actually includes any kind of "procession", whether it be generative, co-generative, or simply prior in the procession when taking the two subjects together (as in this case with the Son and the Holy Spirit).

The Holy Spirit is not an effect of the Son processing, but rather is an effect of the Father processing, therefore there is no causality involved in any sense. This understanding is upheld as absolutely critical by the Latins in order to preserve the sole procession of the Spirit. Thomas Aquinas says, in response to Objection 1 [newadvent.org] :

Notice that fundamental to the phrasing "and the Son" in this case, Thomas Aquinas states that it must be understood as meaning immediately from the Father, not immediately from the Father and the Son together. To understand his illustration with Adam and Abel, it must be remembered that at the time it was believed that the child became implanted in the womb directly from the semen, or "seed", and not by any contributing factors within the mother. Therefore the whole of the person of Abel was deposited into Eve by Adam, and the whole of the person of Abel proceeded out of Eve. In the medieval mind of Aquinas, there was no causality in Eve, as she is a completely passive receiver and conduit of the procession.

Now let's take this example further, as Thomas Aquinas might have if the question had been raised. Keeping with the medieval understanding, if Eve was taken from Adam's side with Adam's seed in her womb, then Abel would receive his personhood immediately from Adam, and mediately from Eve. His personhood would proceed from Adam and Eve as one principle, because upon proceed from Eve he does not recieve "the rest" of his personhood from Adam. Furthermore, he come in a single movement of processing, because he is not placed in Eve's womb partially at the initial seperation, and then more deposited later by Adam, but before his personhood proceeds from Eve.

Breaking it up we can say these facts about Abel:

1) He derives his personhood completely from Adam, as nothing is communicated to him by Eve.

2) He comes from Adam and Eve together, as to say otherwise would be to say that a "half-person" came out of Eve, and was then completed by a second procession by Adam.

3) His personal identity of "First born of Adam" requires nothing from Eve, nor does it interfere with Eve coming first, since Eve comes out of Adam, but not as his seed.

4) In relationship with Eve, she is unquestionably principle to Abel, because Eve preceeds Abel in coming from Adam, and the entire personhood of Abel comes out of Eve. This does not make Eve a "doer" in the eternal procession of Abel, however, since she is principle only in relation to Abel; she is not principally principle (principaliter), i.e. actual doer, and the Greek understanding of αιτία (aition). (at this point I will mention that since we apparently don't have a Greek copy of the Decree of Florence available, we don't know if the Latins meant aition when it said "according to the Greeks by cause", because cause has a more fluid meaning in Latin; they could very well have meant something akin to proienai).

5) Abel's whole personhood comes out of Eve, as neither part of it is left inside of Eve, nor is he completed after leaving Eve by a second procession and principle. So Eve is principle to Abel in their relationship just like Adam is principle to Abel in their own relationship. Again, however, she is not principally principle (principaliter), or the Greek understanding of aition.

As a final point, I've come across another interesting reason as to why the Latins find the use of the term "through the Son" distasteful. The Greek alternative proposed was "επόρευσις εκ Πατρός δι'Υιού", but the Latins consider this heretical because it implies that the Son participates in some way in the επόρευσις of the Holy Spirit, which Latins insist He does not. The επόρευσις of the Holy Spirit derives absolutely nothing from the Son, but rather belongs solely to the Father as principaliter. To the Latins, the phrase επόρευσις εκ Πατρός δι'Υιού by itself comes dangerously close to assigning to the Son what is properly only the Father's.

Ecce Jason: I'm eagerly awaiting your own idea of how it works. I'm learning a lot through this ongoing conversation.

Peace be with you.

Ray,

Let me begin with the words of St. Gregory Nazianzen:

"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottennes of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" (Oration #31).

Again:

"You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how" (Oration #20).

In other words, Ray, I do not know exactly how the Spirit proceeds, but neither did I claim to. Nor is there any reason to suppose that we need to know the exact mechanics of how exactly the Spirit was processed. All I know is that Scripture reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and Christ Himself says this at a point where he seems to contrast it with the sending of the Spirit into the world:

"When the Paraclete comes whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness concerning me" (John 15:26).

These are the things that have been affirmed not only by Scripture but by the tradition of the Church. This, you say, is impossible; but are not all things possible with God?

Leaving aside all that, let me be more analytic and to the point: your question erroneously presumes that, if the Spirit is going to proceed from the Father, then he must proceed into a place. I do not know why you assume that. I have no reason for thinking that that is true. Is the Father in a place? Where? Is the Son begotten of the Father in eternity? Where is He begotten to? Inside God or outside? The fact is that these questions themselves have faulty presuppositions. The divine essence is "beyond being" in the sense that the categories of being do not even apply to it. This is why St. Gregory of Nazianzen cautioned us against prying into the mysteries of God unless we be stricken with madness. It makes no sense to demand that the procession of the Holy Spirit be to a "place" just because procession in the world means movement from one place to another. The divine essence is infinite and incomprehensible, and our language regarding it is apophatic; at some point our concepts break down before the unboundedness of God and we must merely accept what has been revealed (that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father) with reverent silence.

You ask me: "What locations exist inside God's nature - that something can proceed from one place to another - inside God's nature?" I answer: I never said that locations exist in God's nature. That is your presupposition (you think it's necessary for procession for some reason), not mine.

I want to speak frankly for a moment, so forgive me. These questions of yours indicate a true misunderstanding of the doctrine of God. I mean that sincerely and with genuine concern. I mean no offense by them. Humbly, I will submit to you that the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father not just into creation, but in eternity as well, is one of the most clearly fixed doctrines of Scripture and Tradition that there can possibly be. I am not sure how you can think otherwise. You say that you do not want to read books, however, so there is little that I can recommend at this point... And I confess to having a hard time speaking with you on these matters at all. Again, forgive me.

I want to close with the words of Orthodox Father John Breck. He was Professor of New Testament and Ethics at St. Vladimir's Seminary (which is where you say your friend is at, so he may have known him), and is presently Professor of Biblical Interpretation and Ethics at St. Sergius Theological Institute. Here you are:

"[In John 15:26] a clear distinction is made . . . between two actions: 'sending' and 'proceeding.' To the Greek Fathers, this indicates a distinction between the inner life of the Trinity and its temporal, 'economic' manifestation within human history, referred to respectively in contemporary theological language as the 'immanent Trinity' (ad intra [which, translated, means roughly: to the inside]) and the 'economic Trinity' (ad extra). Whereas the 'sending' of the Spirit, by the Father or the Son, concerns the earthly mission or economia [economy], the 'procession' has been understood in Eastern patristic thought to refer to an eternal act by which the Father . . . brings forth the hypostatic being of the Spirit and communicates to him his own divine essence. The question is whether we can affirm, in the 'filioquist' perspective of the Latin tradition, that the Son plays an active role in that eternal bringing forth of the Spirit" (Fr. John Breck, Scripture in Tradition, p. 170-171).

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Ghosty,

I'm about to bow out of this discussion because it's becoming clear to me that there is just too much background lacking on behalf of all of us involved, so that we're getting nowhere and we're going around in circles. However, I did want to ask you where you got this from: The reason I ask is that not only that I have never heard this in my studies, and not only do St. Maximus the Confessor, St. John of Damascus, and so on, use this expression, but Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople even used it at the Seventh Ecumenical Council and was not, as far as I know, reprimanded. You say the Latins consider this heretical, but have you read the clarification on the filioque from the Vatican? It says (with some emphasis added): Thoughts?

God bless,
Jason

Let me be as explicit as I can be: the East denies precisely what it is that the West affirms, i.e., it denies that the Holy Spirit proceeds "by way of" the Son. There is a manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the procession of the Spirit as hypostasis.

Thus the East holds a position that denies precisely what it is that St. Thomas affirms in the Summa, and that the Council of Florence teaches in its decree.

Moreover, "proienai" has nothing to do with the existential origin of the Spirit and therefore the Son is not a cause, source, origin, or principle of the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit. The term "proienai" concerns the "shining forth" of the Spirit through the Son as divine energy, it has nothing to do with the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit, and so there is no sense in which the Son can be thought of as a cause of the Spirit, not even with the expression "by way of," thus the Western teaching is not compatible with the doctrine of the East.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Hello everyone,

I am coming in on the tale of end of this, though I have been following it. First, thanks to all who participated. It's a well thought out debate I think. I just want to post my own two bits about the following quote from
Apotheoun.

This seems like a strong statement (especially for a Byzantine Catholic)-- that the gap is unbridgable. Even the Eastern Orthodox are generally moving away from this position. If we look at Bishop Ware for example...

"The filioque controversy which has separated us [Eastern Orthodox and Catholics] for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences"

So I guess my question is that if Ware's position becomes the widely accepted stance of Eastern Orthodoxy (which seems to be slowly happening at least from my own experience) then would that be enough for you to believe the two teachings are compatable? Or would you think that the EO had made a mistake and continue to hold to your current thought? Just curious. Thanks again.

Welcome... yes... it is pretty darn exciting! Some well thought out digging going on here - with very capable people.

If iit gets you thinking and digging into your books - it is very worth your time.

-ray

Nowhere have I said that the "filioque" problem is insoluble; instead, what I have made clear is that any solution that makes the Son a cause, source, origin, or principle (actively or passively) of the hypostatic existence of the Holy Spirit is not compatible with the Byzantine theological tradition. The hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone, and so the Spirit does not hypostatically proceed either "from", "through", or "by way of" the Son.

Moreover, I do not think that the Florentine decree can be conformed to the doctrinal tradition of the Eastern Churches, and so it cannot form the basis of any future restoration of communion between the East and the West.

As far bishop Ware's comments are concerned, they do not seem all that substantive (at least as quoted), and so without a fuller explanation from him about his understanding of the hypostatic origination (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, and of the Spirit's eternal manifestation (proienai) in the divine energy through the Son, I cannot really judge his position. But that being said, I sincerely doubt that he would be willing to compromise divine revelation itself (cf. John 15:26) and hold that the Son is a principle or cause of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.

To understand better the distinctions I have mentioned, i.e., between the Spirit's hypostatic procession and His eternal manifestation in the divine energy, I suggest reading the Tomus of Blachernae (A.D. 1285), which gives the official position of the Byzantine Church on this issue (and which was also the official act whereby the Eastern Church rejected the union proposed by the Council of Lyons).

One final note, I do believe that the "filioque" as it was held during the time of St. Maximos the Confessor is conformable to the teaching of the Byzantine Church, but sadly the later Western Councils (Lyons and Florence) have moved the Western teaching beyond that original conception of the "filioque" and have made the Son a co-principle (or a single principle) with the Father in the procession of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis, and this idea cannot be conformed to the teaching of the Eastern Church at any time in its history.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Link to the definition of the Council of Blachernae: Tomus of 1285 [geocities.com]

If you mean to say that the Byzantine church rejects the Latin form... you are mistaken.

Have I missed your meaning here?

-ray

The Byzantine Catholic Church may accept the Latin form, but the Byzantine Orthodox certainly do not.

Moreover, to accept the Latin doctrinal expression, at least as it is found in the Councils of Lyons and Florence, leads ultimately to the rejection of the Cappadocian understanding of the Trinity, since clearly the Cappadocians, and those who followed them (e.g., St. Maximos, St. John Damascene, St. Photius, Gregory of Cyprus, St. Gregory Palamas, et al.) reject any type of causality by the Son in the hypostatic relations of the Trinity. The Father is the sole cause of the Son and the Spirit, the former by generation and the latter by spiration, and to ascribe any kind of causality to the Son leads either to ditheism or modalism.

Blessings to you,
Todd

There are over 14 churches which follow the Byzantine rites.

The Albainian Church, Bulgarian Church, Byelorussian, Croation, Gegorian, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Rutenian, Slovackian, and Ukranian, and let us not forget this one - the Byzantine Catholic church.

Some understand the correct meaning of the filoque in Latin theology and some others add words and imagine meaning that is not there through following the fallible human mistakes of the non-ecumenical Council of Blachernae regarding their gross misreading of the Latin filoque - by adding all kinds of words and thoughts to it that was not part of the Latin form.

The same was done to the Copts who were wrongly accused of being Monophysites, excommunicated, shunned, and called heretics... which they were not. So this kind of misunderstanding raised to the level of divine truth - has happened before.

Now that canon of the Council of Blachernae - is fallible right? As fallible as the Orthodox canon which states that any member who allows himself to be treated by a Jewish doctor - must be excommunicated. Or at least we can ignore it like the Orthodox ignore the canon which states that the Bishop of Rome has first place among the bishops� right?

Does this mode of speaking help things?

Or - are you open minded enough with charity and efforts at human understanding - to entertain the idea that some - unintentional - misunderstanding - might have taken place� ?

The word hypostasis does not appear in the Latin form - what right did they have (Blachernae) to insert that meaning into it... and then accuse the Latins of it ??

The only thing that Blachernae rightly condemned - is their own personal interpretation of it. They condemned themselves over it. And pinned it on the Latins.

That is my personal opinion. It is getting that way from the lack of charity and simple human understanding that some (not all) Orthodox display when dealing with the subject. It is very Calvinistic - as if they were personally denying Christ - if they even consider earlier Orthodox members had made a human error on such an issue - while any Orthodox who comes to understand the real meaning of the Latin filoque and says so - is practically shunned and made to fear he stepping over into heretic-land.

Sorry � my charity sometimes wears thin over how many times we Latins re-explain it once again - and meet only deaf and uncharitable ears who perpetuate this mistake and prolong the separation of the churches.

Ta Ta.

It is time for me to leave this subject before I lose all charity in light of this persistent falsehood that separates the churches. The devil - have his way.

-ray

Dear Ghostly...

You are essentially right in your interpretation of the filoque. I did like the garden hose slimily. I re-read it slowly several times. Where did you get that? If you do not mind � I may use it sometime.

Don't let anyone talk you out of your understanding by snowballing you with out of context quotes, words added to it that it does not have, and tons of useless knowledge substituting for even a bit of human understanding.

I see no reason to go back to a heartless slavery to the letter of the law that Jesus freed us from.

I leave this thread now.

Nice to have met you.

-ray

Dear Ray you said:

"The only thing that Blachernae rightly condemned - is their own personal interpretation of it. They condemned themselves over it. And pinned it on the Latins."

I say:

BRAVO!

In Christ,

Zenovia

On this topic it is clear that we will have to agree to disagree.

It may be that in order for me to embrace fully the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of A.D. 381, and the writings of the Cappadocians, Maximos, Damascene, and Palamas, et al., that I will have to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. I thank RayK in particular for this new insight.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Dear Ghosty, and All Involved,

Clearly this discussion has been overrun with ad hominem assertions against persons rather than fruitful dialogue concerning the issues at hand. I am saddened to see this, and ask forgiveness for whatever part in it I may have had. Respectfully, I will likely be bowing out of this conversation after this post. I wish only to add some words of caution.

Ghosty, you have been advised: While I do not know to whom this particular barb is personally referring, I hope you will take me at my word when I say that my aim has never been to "snowball" anyone, and furthermore that I do not believe quotes have been submitted out of context. Such statements require support, of course, so I encourage you to investigate things on your own. I had hoped that this dialogue would involve that sort of mutual investigation and discussion, and it has up until this point; I have had no problems with you at all, and I hope you have had no problems with me. I have enjoyed discussing things with you and I believe that you understand where I'm coming from. Apparently, however, others do have certain grievances here. I am sorry to see that, and I ask forgiveness for what cause I may have had in it.

To all, I would like to also say that I do not feel that what has been posted here has been "tons of useless knowledge substituting for even a bit of human understanding." Ghosty, Apotheoun, and others of us have engaged in friendly dialogue precisely with the purpose of understanding one another and ferreting out where the disagreement really lies, or if there even is one. We have done hard work trying to do this. Time and time again we have gone "back to the drawing board," so to speak. This has all been done in a spirit of charity, and I thank all of the aforementioned people for the opportunity to dialogue. I know that we were at least approaching this with the aim of understanding, and I hope that -- despite the characterizations of others -- some of that has actually been achieved.

We have been advised not "to go back to a heartless slavery to the letter of the law that Jesus freed us from." I would submit that this is a terribly uncharitable mischaracterization of what is really going on here. To add some perspective, consider the First Ecumenical Council and its response to the Arian controversy: some of the most crucial discussion involved disputes over one letter (i.e., the dispute was over whether the proper word for the Creed was homoousion or homoiousion)). I would be quite dismayed if that Council was ended without a solution because someone there might have thought that they had returned to "heartless slavery to the letter of the law." While certainly there is such slavery, I would humbly contend that discussions about important articles of faith are not (at least, not always) examples of such slavery; sometimes what one believes and says really is important (if that were not the case, applying that test to the First Ecumenical Council would -- God forbid! -- have left Arianism within the realms of Orthodoxy). Again, I do not believe there is any support to be offered for thinking that we are submitting to this "slavery" here by freely talking amongst ourselves about an issue that has been one of importance for the reunion of churches. We have been dialoguing as open-minded companions here, at least until these most recent and unfortunate posts. I hope that such dialogues, without these latter interruptions, can continue on this board in the future.

God bless, Everyone,
Jason