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

Okay Ghosty, this is it... I went and did some research for you today! Hopefully this should at least settle what the Latin doctrine is, and whether or not Latins think Beccus's doctrine is entirely orthodox. You may be surprised by some of this, now that I've got some Greek texts (yeah, I know a bit of Greek too).

First, I got ahold of the Greek text of the declaration of the Latin doctrine at the Second Council of Lyons, which is of course also an equally binding ecumenical council and set the background for Florence. Guess what? When the Council declares in Greek that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai(!); we all know by now that the means existential origin, so the doctrine is that the Spirit takes his origin from the Father and the Son, just like Apotheoun and I have been saying all along. Furthermore, when it says that the Father and the Son together constitute "one principle," the Greek word it uses is one arche; so, the doctrine is also that the Father and the Son in the procession of the Spirit constitute one "arche." Since "arche" is the root for the word "monarchy," and we're saying that the Filioque has blurred the Persons of the Father and the Son into one monarch, thereby limiting the Father's absolute monarchy, we seem to have all the support of the decree of Lyons.

By the way, in case it's a question, I have the text in Greek, Latin, and English. It's all there.

Now, moving on to other issues. I got Joseph Gill's book that I recommended to you, Church Union: Rome and Byzantium, and went through his documents on John Beccus, on the Council of Florence, and on the Greek reaction to it. I have some Greek texts and I also have Gill's statements on John Beccus. Here are the statements on John Beccus (from the chapter entitled "John Beccus, Patriarch of Constantinople"):

First, some evidence that it was clear he was frequently in communication with the Latins, frequently communicated his doctrine (which I believe you called a "disgusting heresy") to them and the Pope, and was not reprimanded for what he said but was in fact the avenue through which the Pope worked for solidifying the union:

(1) "Beccus . . . sent to inform the Pope of his election and to report on the progress of the union" (p. 256).

(2) "Patriarch [Beccus] and synod issued a 'tomographia' repeating their acceptance of union . . . Beccus sent a copy of the 'tomographia' to Rome with an accompanying letter of his own, that contained a profession of faith. A little later . . . to meet the request made by Pope John XXI . . . he wrote a similar letter with a longer profession of faith" (256-257).

(3) "[Beccus] himself escorted the envoys [i.e., the nuncios sent by Pope Nicholas III] to Constantinople" (p. 258).

Second, evidence that Beccus's doctrine was identical to the doctrine of the Latin Church. His doctrine is given explicit praise and is said to be one with the Church of Rome:

(1) "In these documents [Beccus's professions of faith sent to the Pope] he states very explicitly his acceptance of Roman primacy and of the Filioque doctrine as believed by the Latins . . . He leaves no doubt . . . that his belief is one with the belief of the Romans" (257).

(2) "Beccus's defence of the Latin doctrine of the Filioque brought on him . . . accusations [by the Greeks] of all kinds of heresies" (258). [Ed: These "accusations" are those that were made at Blachernae and other places; the doctrine of Beccus's that Blachernae said was heretical is here equated with "the Latin doctrine of the Filioque."]

(3) "Beccus had taught that the Spirit has his existence also from the Son" (263). [Ed: again, as the above quote and later quotes below make clear, this doctrine is the Latin doctrine.]

(4) "The trial [at Blachernae] had been a moral triumph for the three unionists [Beccus being one of them]. Patriarch Gregory tried to . . . rob Beccus of his seeming victory, by producing in August 1285 a 'tome' justifying the synod and giving an explanation of those words of the Damascene that had caused such difficulty [for the anti-unionists]. All ecclesiastics were required to sign it. Very few did. They were wise. Beccus very soon . . . wrote a refutation which was widely circulated by his friends. Gregory's enemies prevailed on the emperor to appoint a committee to amend the 'tome,' but it could find no answer to Beccus's argument" (263). [Ed: Again, what is suggested is that it was wise not to oppose Beccus's doctrine, that he was robbed of what was really a victory, and that his doctrine was never refuted. This is all made in the context of vindicating Beccus and the Latin doctrine.]

(5) "At the very beginning [of one of his treatises] he [Beccus] stated very plainly the twofold purpose he had in writing it -- to show that the Fathers clearly asserted 'that the Holy Spirit has His existence from the essence of the Father and the Son" (i.e., the doctrine of the Roman Filioque) . . . 'Through' implied a medial position between Father and Spirit" (264-265).

(6) "[Beccus's work is] a mine of patristic learning that would serve many an advocate of Church union" (265).

(7) "When Beccus . . . in 1273, set himself to study the Filioque question, Pachymeres suggested that his knowledge of theology might be somewhat deficient . . . The competence he acquired by that study can be gauged by the reputation he enjoyed with the generation that followed him. 'There were some who surpassed him in Greek learning. But in respect of acuteness, of natural talents, of fluency of speech and of proficiency in the dogmas of the Church, all others in comparison with him were mere children'" (265). [Ed: Again, it's suggested that Beccus was nothing but an expert defender of orthodox doctrine.]

(8) "In each case [where one of his contemporaries faults Beccus for something], the fault was perhaps, if anything, an excess of virtue -- to force the Emperor to practise Christian charity, and to counteract the ignorant travesties of Latin doctrine" (266). [Ed: Once again, Beccus was the virtuous defender of the right understanding of Latin doctrine.]

Moving on from John Beccus to the Council of Florence now. First, Gill gives at least one additional reason why the Orthodox might have a problem with the participants at the Council (from his article, "Agreement on the 'Filioque'"):

(1) "[At Florence] the metaphysics of the Blessed Trinity . . . were beyond the capabilities of most of the audience" (256).

In a different essay entitled, "A Profession of Faith of Michael Balsamon, the Great Chartophylax," Gill goes on to describe the life and profession of faith of Michael Balsamon. Balsamon was a member of "the more select Greek committee that decided to discuss in Ferrara the Filioque as an addition" (120). Furthermore, Gill points out that Balsamon signed the decree of the Council of Florence but then went on to repudiate it. He repudiated Florence by publishing a declaration of faith against it, a declaration which Gill says is "undoubtedly the Profession printed here" (122).

He then cites the profession in both Greek and in English. Here is what Balsamon says regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit:

"The Son I do not hold to be either source [in the Greek: aitia] or principle [in the Greek: arche], for only the Father is source [aitia] and principle [arche]; as He is of the Son according to the ineffable generation, so is He also of the Holy Spirit according to His unexpressible procession. Therefore I do not profess the Holy Spirit to be from or through the Son, or to have his existence from the Son -- avaunt the blasphemy" (126-127).

Now if he's repudiating Florence by this profession, and what he explicitly refuses to do is say that the Son is an aitia or an arche, then it makes sense to think that these are precisely the notions that were expressed at Florence.

I should note, in fairness, that Gill says that Montenero at Florence asserted that "the Latins, like the Greeks, held that there is only one cause and principle in the Blessed Trinity and anathematised those who held two" ("Agreement on the 'Filioque'", p. 256). However, in the context of the fact that Lyons says that indeed the ekporeusis comes from both, that Balsamon's repudiation of Florence came in the form or repudiating the Son as aitia or arche, and in light of the fact that Beccus's doctrine is the Roman doctrine, we should legitimately question what Gill may mean by stating this. And the answer is not far, for it's given by Montenero in his very dialogue at the Council of Florence:

"Mark: When you say 'from the Father', do you mean from his person? And when you say 'from the Son', also from his person? And when 'from both', from the persons of both?

John [Montenero]: Yes, when we speak of Father and Son separately; but when from both, we say that the Holy Spirit is from one principle, since the Procession is common to Father and Son. But that is not the present question."

In other words, the Latins say one cause or one principle when they speak of the Father and the Son in common, for they are both commonly one cause or one principle. This obviously does not preclude making the Son some sort of cause. The entire context of the debate also makes it clear that Montenero is indeed arguing that the Son plays a role in the Spirit's existential procession. Again, the definition of Lyons and its uses of ekporeuesthai only makes this all the more clear.

At this point, I'd humbly suggest that the question of the historical doctrine has been settled.

Thanks much, and God bless,
Jason

I suppose I should mention that the Greek translation of the decrees of the Second Council of Lyons that Gill gives is embedded in a Greek document repudiating Lyons, so one might claim that the Greeks mistranslated it or intentionally misrepresented the decree. However, before someone jumps to that conclusion, I should mention that Gill not only suggests nothing of the sort, but he also leaves only this portion containing Lyons' decree untranslated into English; he gives the Greek version and then he places the version in Latin parallel to it, suggesting that the Greek text at this point is a direct and faithful citation of the decree. In fact, the explicit purpose of the Greek document is to cite exactly what was said at Lyons and then to say why they reject it, so it more or less seems that they were "cutting and pasting" exactly what was said. In that case, the question to ask is whether the decrees of Lyons were published in both Greek and Latin or just in Latin; that I don't know.

In any case, there's still all the stuff on Beccus, on Montenero and the Latin doctrine, and on Michael Balsamon's reaction to Florence that makes more or less the same case.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

I just have to laugh (hehe)...

My first check at another source for the wording - seems - at first blush - to support Jason.

(dizzy dizzy dizzy)

It uses the word "eternal".

Now I have to determine - just what Does the filoque mean (dizzy dizzy dizzy).

(Jason pulls out ahead - snatching what looked like an apparent win - from the clutches of Ray and Ghostly... stay tuned for part II)

OK.. I am dizzy now. I may be actually forced to do my own research to figure out 'what happened?'

Jason, your story is all the more believable for the bickering and political maneuvering it relates. These bishops were brutal with each other. Byzantine or Latin - it was just as bad as Republicans and Democrats political fights at the last election.

-ray

Jason... I respect that for you - the thing is settled. And I have no problem with your view - for yourself.

For me - it raises more questions. For example how can this be?

"I should note, in fairness, that Gill says that Montenero at Florence asserted that "the Latins, like the Greeks, held that there is only one cause and principle in the Blessed Trinity and anathematised those who held two"

Yet the filoque of the Latins sez diffrently?

Something does not make sense. Something seems missing. The Latins profess one thing and in one most important statement they say another which is quite opposite? Did they intend to do this? or is something still missing - still misunderstood.

Obviously, I can not look at the church that produced St. John of the Cross, Padre Pio, Mother Terresa, John Paul II, and say it is heretical. Neither have I ever looked upon Orthodox as hertical.

Now my head is filled with such questions as...

1) if the Holy Spirit is - generated - from the father - may that make him - a second son (by act of generation)??

2) if we are talking the eternal - not time is involved - are we wrong then to assume time (the father exists first and then later generates the son - and the holy spirit later - at the same time - before - none of that seems right to view it in time.

3) Could the Latin be referring to the shared nature of God which both father and son share together (both are one in that nature)... and now the images of "the holy spirit is the love between the father and son" comes to my mind.

This may all now be beyond me until I can trace the origin of the concept back before these councils.

And how are we to understand Jesus saying "I send the holy spirit to you."?

Again, I wonder (and no one else is interested in this) if the first formulations of this - before Councils took it over - had to do with the 'procession of creation' as described by Dynionsus (which is supposed to be where Palmas and Gregory go it).

So while I can now see the problem better - the probability of misunderstanding seems greater (plus we can now also see the political maneuvering done by individuals and groups).

And lastly - I must ask myself �Does it all really make that much difference to me?� as whatever the reality may be - the semantics of it should not be a cause for such the division that it did cause. Perhaps it is reaching far too high for something which Christ himself did not reveal. Perhaps - it is all �none of our business� ?

Have we all been victims of a scholarly invention? and are these authros trying to tell us what happend - guessing? Putting the puzzel together wrong?

So I think I will need time to digest this all now.

But I tell you what - the power plays that went on at these councils - is always disturbing to me. We all would like to think of our own church (which every that may be) as spotless - but the more I get to see how these early bishops acted - the more I see that these were humans with weakness and faults and down right manipulations.

You did good Jason - you threw the wrench right into the gears

This essey is my next area of study for 'procession'.
http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/Corrective

Cheers.
-ray

Ray,

Consonant with my desire to not contribute so much time here, I'm going to try to be brief (although tonight it turns out that I don't have much to occupy my time anyway).

You asked how this could be: Yes, I noted myself that that was an odd thing to say. Did you see my explanation afterwards of what it seemed to mean in the context? Montenero says that there is only one cause and principle in the Blessed Trinity in that, when it comes to the Spirit, the Son and Father together constitute "one cause" and "one principle" in common. This is not contrary to what was professed at Florence; in fact, Florence says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son "as from one principle." So, I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction there.

You ask: No, the Holy Spirit is not a second Son. Procession and generation are different, although, as St. Gregory (whom I quoted earlier) suggests, we might not be able to say exactly how. It's just that what has been revealed to us is that the Holy Spirit and the Son are distinct Persons, and that the Son is the only-begotten and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. That's all revealed in Scripture and expressed in the Councils, so that's what we've got to work with as our starting points.

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you're asking here, but if you're asking if it's wrong to say that the Son was generated in time and the Spirit proceeded in time, as far as their Trinitarian existence is concerned, then yes, it is wrong to assume time. The Son is eternally (a-temporally) begotten and the Spirit is eternally (a-temporally) processed.

Well, the Orthodox even allow that there is a sort of filioque on the level of the shared divine nature, if that's what you're suggesting. However, it's incorrect to say that the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the nature. Rather, he Personally (hypostatically) proceeds from the Person of the Father (or, if you affirm the filioque, from the Persons of the Father and the Son). However, His divine nature (not Person) is the divine nature of the Father and the Son.

There is a distinction between the eternal procession of the Person of the Spirit within the Trinity (i.e., outside of time) and the "procession" or "sending" of the Spirit into the world within time. Again, the Orthodox will agree that the Son sends the Spirit within time. They'll just say that he doesn't personally (hypostatically) process His eternal existence in the Trinity.

Hopefully that answers some of your questions and doesn't just add to the confusion. In any case, by all means, keep studying. And of course, as you've suggested, focusing on Christ and prayer is ultimately more important than the meaning of words.

God bless,
Jason

When in doubt - go right to the authoritive souce and forget the book sellers who have goal to sell books.

The below is taken from the L'Osservatore Romano which is the offcial newspaper of the Vatican and the Roman Pontif. It faithfully reflects the offcial and authoritive position of the Catholic Church.

So this is - and has been - the teaching of the Latin church - and all other opinions are just opinions (degrees of right and wrong).

I have not yet thoughtfuly read it.

Now would someone post for me an offcial and authroitive explination of the Eastern version (not from some writer - but from some offcial organ of the Eastern Orthodox or Byzantine church).

Let us stop guessing or quoating people who are gussing. (which I have done also).

-ray

The Holy Father, in the homily he gave in St Peter Basilica on 29 June in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, expressed a desire that "the traditional doctrine of the Filioque, present in the liturgical version of the Latin Credo, [be clarified] in order to highlight its full harmony with what the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of 381 confesses in its creed: the Father as the source of the whole Trinity, the one origin both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

What is published here is the clarification he has asked for, which has been undertaken by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. It is intended as a contribution to the dialogue which is carried out by the Joint International Commission between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

In its first report on "The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity", unanimously approved in Munich on 6 July 1982, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had mentioned the centuries-old difficulty between the two Churches concerning the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit. Not being able to treat this subject for itself in this first phase of the dialogue, the Commission stated: "Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the Eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32)" (Information Service of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, n. 49, p. 108, I, 6).

The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.

On the basis of Jn 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit �to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon� (�who takes his origin from the Father�). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner.1

The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the "Father's monarchy", and the Western tradition, following St Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father "principaliter", that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, PL 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as principle of the whole Trinity is called ekporeusiV by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers. St Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusiV, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusiV (Discourse 39, 12, Sources chr�tiennes 358, p. 175). Even if St Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusqai the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (Cf. Commentary on St John, X, 2, PG 74, 910D; Ep 55, PG 77, 316 D, etc.). Even for St Cyril, the term ekporeusiV as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai) can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.

That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou PatroV kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou to the formula to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins.

The Orthodox Orient does not, however, refuse all eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit in their origin from the Father. St Gregory of Nazianzus, a great witness to our two traditions, makes this clear in response to Macedonius who was asking: "What then is lacking to the Spirit to be the Son, for if nothing was lacking to him, he would be the Son? � We say that nothing is lacking to him, for nothing is lacking to God; but it is the difference in manifestation, if I may say so, or in the relationship between them (thV pros allhla scesewV diajoron) which makes also the difference in what they are called" (Discourse 31, 9, Sources chr�tiennes 250, pp. 290-292).

The Orthodox Orient has, however, given a happy expression to this relationship with the formula dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son). St Basil already said of the Holy Spirit: "Through the Son (dia tou Uiou), who is one, he is joined to the Father, who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, XVIII, 45, Sources chr�tiennes 17 bis, p. 408). St Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat� ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di� Uiou gennhqentoV)" (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C). We find this again in St John Damascene: "(o Pathr) aei hn, ecwn ex eautou ton autou logon, kai dia tou logou autou ex eautou to Pnewma autou ekporeuomenon�, in English: �I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him� (Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354; cf. PG 94, 848-849 A). This aspect of the Trinitarian mystery was confessed at the seventh Ecumenical council, meeting at Nicaea in 787, by the Patriarch of Constantinople, St Tarasius, who developed the Symbol as follows: "to Pneuma to agion, to kurion kai zwopoion, to ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon� (Mansi, XII, 1122 D).

This doctrine all bears witness to the fundamental Trinitarian faith as it was professed together by East and West at the time of the Fathers. It is the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox.

The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arch, aitia) of the ekporeusiV of the Spirit. The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit. Against Arianism, which was still virulent in the West, its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one monarchy of the Father.

We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioque on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation, while being aware of how inadequate human language is to express the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God, a mystery which is beyond our words and our thoughts.

The Catholic Church interprets the Filioque with reference to the conciliar and ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value of the confession of faith in the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit, as defined in 381 by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in its Symbol. This Symbol only became known and received by Rome on the occasion of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. In the meantime, on the basis of the earlier Latin theological tradition, Fathers of the Church of the West like St Hilary, St Ambrose, St Augustine and St Leo the Great, had confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) eternally from the Father and the Son.2

Since the Latin Bible (the Vulgate and earlier Latin translations) had translated Jn 15:26 (para tou PatroV ekporeuetai) by "qui a Patre procedit", the Latins translated the ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople by "ex Patre procedentem" (Mansi VII, 112 B). In this way, a false equivalence was involuntarily created with regard to the eternal origin of the Spirit between the Oriental theology of the ekporeusiV and the Latin theology of the processio.

The Greek ekporeusiV signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.3 In confessing the Holy Spirit "ex Patre procedentem", the Latins, therefore, could only suppose an implicit Filioque which would later be made explicit in their liturgical version of the Symbol.

In the West, the Filioque was confessed from the fifth century through the Quicumque (or "Athanasianum", DS 75) Symbol, and then by the Councils of Toledo in Visigothic Spain between 589 and 693 (DS 470, 485, 490, 527, 568), to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality. If these Councils did not perhaps insert it in the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople, it is certainly to be found there from the end of the eighth century, as evidenced in the proceedings of the Council of Aquileia-Friuli in 796 (Mansi XIII, 836, D, ff.) and that of Aachen of 809 (Mansi XIV, 17). In the ninth century, however, faced with Charlemagne, Pope Leo III, in his anxiety to preserve unity with the Orient in the confession of faith, resisted this development of the Symbol which had spread spontaneously in the West, while safeguarding the truth contained in the Filioque. Rome only admitted it in 1014 into the liturgical Latin version of the Creed.

In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of procession (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiwdwV) in it and from it" (St Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A) .4

In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusiV. St Maximus the Confessor then wrote a letter from Rome linking together the two approaches � Cappadocian and Latin-Alexandrian � to the eternal origin of the Spirit: the Father is the sole principle without principle (in Greek aitia) of the Son and of the Spirit; the Father and the Son are consubstantial source of the procession (to proienai) of this same Spirit. "For the procession they [the Romans] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (Aitia) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole Cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusiV � but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marinus of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B). According to St Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusiV of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's monarchy.

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit, proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common. This point was confessed as dogma in 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council: "The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance (...) It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality" (DS 804-805).

In 1274 the Second Council of Lyons confessed that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle (tamquam ex uno principio)" (DS 850). In the light of the Lateran Council, which preceded the Second Council of Lyons, it is clear that it is not the divine essence that can be the "one principle" for the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets this formula in n. 248 as follows: "The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the 'principle without principle' (DS 1331), is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds (Second Council of Lyons, DS 850)".

For the Catholic Church, "at the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he 'who proceeds from the Father' ("ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon" cf. Jn 15:26), it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque). (...) This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 248). Being aware of this, the Catholic Church has refused the addition of kai tou Uiou to the formula ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek. The liturgical use of this original text remains always legitimate in the Catholic Church.

If it is correctly situated, the Filioque of the Latin tradition must not lead to a subordination of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion, it nonetheless recognizes the reality of the original relationship of the Holy Spirit as person with the Father, a relationship that the Greek Fathers express by the term ekporeusiV.5

In the same way, if in the Trinitarian order the Holy Spirit is consecutive to the relation between the Father and the Son, since he takes his origin from the Father as Father of the only Son,6 it is in the Spirit that this relationship between the Father and the Son itself attains its Trinitarian perfection. Just as the Father is characterized as Father by the Son he generates, so does the Spirit, by taking his origin from the Father, characterize the Father in the manner of the Trinity in relation to the Son and characterizes the Son in the manner of the Trinity in his relation to the Father: in the fullness of the Trinitarian mystery they are Father and Son in the Holy Spirit.7

The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.8

The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character. It is in this sense that St John Damascene says: "The Holy Spirit is a substantial power contemplated in his own distinct hypostasis, who proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Word" (De Fide orthodoxa I, 7, PG 94, 805 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1973, p. 16; Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354).10

What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8,16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6).11

The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love. This takes into account the fact that, through love, the Holy Spirit orients the whole life of Jesus towards the Father in the fulfilment of his will. The Father sends his Son (Gal 4:4) when Mary conceives him through the operation of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 1:35). The Holy Spirit makes Jesus manifest as Son of the Father by resting upon him at Baptism (cf. Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:33). He drives Jesus into the wilderness (cf. Mk 1:12). Jesus returns "full of the Holy Spirit" (Lk 4:1). Then he begins his ministry "in the power of the Spirit" (Lk 4:14). He is filled with joy in the Spirit, blessing the Father for his gracious will (cf. Lk 10:21). He chooses his Apostles "through the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:2). He casts out demons by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He offers himself to the Father "through the eternal Spirit" (Heb 9:14). On the Cross he "commits his Spirit" into the Father's hands (Lk 23:46). "In the Spirit" he descended to the dead (cf. 1 Pt 3:19), and by the Spirit he was raised from the dead (cf. Rom 8:11) and "designated Son of God in power" (Rom 1:4).12 This role of the Spirit in the innermost human existence of the Son of God made man derives from an eternal Trinitarian relationship through which the Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of Love, characterizes the relation between the Father, as source of love, and his beloved Son.

The original character of the person of the Spirit as eternal Gift of the Father's love for his beloved Son shows that the Spirit, while coming from the Son in his mission, is the one who brings human beings into Christ's filial relationship to his Father, for this relationship finds only in him its Trinitarian character: "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Abba! Father!� (Gal 4:6). In the mystery of salvation and in the life of the Church, the Spirit therefore does much more than prolong the work of the Son. In fact, whatever Christ has instituted � Revelation, the Church, the sacraments, the apostolic ministry and its Magisterium � calls for constant invocation

(epiklhsiV) of the Holy Spirit and his action (energeia), so that the love that "never ends" (1 Cor 13:8) may be made manifest in the communion of the saints with the life of the Trinity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES

1 These are the terms employed by St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, Ia, q. 36, a. 3, 1um and 2um.

2 It is Tertullian who lays the foundations for Trinitarian theology in the Latin tradition, on the basis of the substantial communication of the Father to the Son and through the Son to the Holy Spirit: "Christ says of the Spirit: 'He will take from what is mine' (Jn 16:14), as he does from the Father. In this way, the connection of the Father to the Son and of the Son to the Paraclete makes the three cohere one from the other. They who are one sole reality (unum) not one alone (unus) by reason of the unity of substance and not of numerical singularity" (Adv. Praxean, XXV, 1-2). This communication of the divine consubstantiality in the Trinitarian order he expresses with the verb "procedere" (ibid., II, 6). We find this same theology in St Hilary of Poitiers, who says to the Father: "May I receive your Spirit who takes his being from you through your only Son" (De Trinitate, XII, PL 10, 471). He remarks: "If anyone thinks there is a difference between receiving from the Son (Jn 16:15) and proceeding (procedere) from the Father (Jn 15:26), it is certain that it is one and the same thing to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father" (De Trinitate, VIII, 20, PL 10, 251 A). It is in this sense of communication of divinity through procession that St Ambrose of Milan is the first to formulate the Filioque: "The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds (procedit) from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (De Spiritu Sancto, I, 11, 120, PL 16, 733 A = 762 D). St Augustine, however, takes the precaution of safeguarding the Father's monarchy within the consubstantial communion of the Trinity: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as principle (principaliter) and, through the latter's timeless gift to the Son, from the Father and the Son in communion (communiter)" (De Trinitate, XV, 25, 47, PL 42, 1095). St Leo, Sermon LXXV, 3, PL 54, 402; Sermon LXXVI, 2, ibid. 404).

3 Tertullian uses the verb procedere in a sense common to the Word and the Spirit insofar as they receive divinity from the Father: "The Word was not uttered out of something empty and vain, and he does not lack substance, he who proceeded (processit) from such a [divine] substance and has made so many [created] substances" (Adv. Praxean, VII, 6). St Augustine, following St Ambrose, takes up this more common conception of procession: "All that proceeds is not born, although what is born proceeds" (Contra Maximinum, II, 14, 1, PL 42, 770). Much later St Thomas Aquinas remarks that "the divine nature is communicated in every processing that is not ad extra" (Summa Theologica, a, q. 27, a. 3, 2um). For him, as for all this Latin theology which used the term "procession" for the Son as well as for the Spirit, "generation is a procession which puts the divine person in possession of the divine nature" (ibid., a, q. 43, a. 2, c), for "from all eternity the Son proceeds in order to be God" (ibid.). In the same way, he affirms that "through his procession, the Holy Spirit receives the nature of the Father, as does the Son" (ibid., a, q. 35, a. 2, c). "Of words referring to any kind of origin, the most general is procession. We use it to indicate any origin whatever; we say, for instance, that the line proceeds from the point; that the ray proceeds from the sun, the river from its source, and likewise in all kinds of other cases. Since we admit one or another of these words that evoke origin, we can therefore conclude that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son" (ibid., a, q. 36, a. 2, c).

4 St Cyril bears witness here to a Trinitarian doctrine common to the whole school of Alexandria since St Athanasius, who had written: "Just as the Son says: 'All that the Father has is mine' (Jn 16:15), so shall we find that, through the Son, it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters to Serapion, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B). St Epiphanius of Salamis (Ancoratus, VIII, PG 43, 29 C) and Didymus the Blind (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, CLIII, PG 34, 1064 A) link the Father and the Son by the same preposition ek in the communication to the Holy Spirit of the consubstantial divinity.

5 "The two relationships of the Son to the Father and of the Holy Spirit to the Father oblige us to place two relationships in the Father, one referring to the Son and the other to the Holy Spirit" (St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Ia, q. 32, a. 2, c).

6 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 248.

7 St Gregory of Nazianzus says that "the Spirit is a middle term (meson) between the Unbegotten and the Begotten" (Discourse 31, 8, Sources chr�tiennes 250, p. 290). Cf. also, in a Thomistic perspective, G. Leblond, "Point of view on the procession of the Holy Spirit", in Revue Thomiste, LXXXVI, t. 78, 1978, pp. 293-302.

8 St Cyril of Alexandria says that "the Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son (en tw Uiw)�, Thesaurus, XXXIV, PG 75, 577 A).

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: �Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him� (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God [the Father] is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God [the Father] is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC). And St Maximus affirms in the same way the Trinitarian order when he writes: "Just as the Thought [the Father] is principle of the Word, so is he also of the Spirit through the Word. And, just as one cannot say that the Word is of the voice [of the Breath], so one cannot say that the Word is of the Spirit" (Quaestiones et dubia, PG 90, 813 B).

10 St Thomas Aquinas, who knew the De Fide orthodoxa, sees no opposition between the Filioque and this expression of St John Damascene: "To say that the Holy Spirit reposes or dwells in the Son does not exclude his proceeding from the Son; for we say also that the Son dwells in the Father, although he proceeds from the Father" (Summa Theologica, a, q. 36, a. 2, 4um).

11 St Thomas Aquinas, following St Augustine, writes: "If we say of the Holy Spirit that he dwells in the Son, it is in the way that the love of one who loves reposes in the loved one" (Summa theologica, la, q. 36, a. 2, 4um). This doctrine of the Holy Spirit as love has been harmoniously assumed by St Gregory Palamas into the Greek theology of the ekporeusiV from the Father alone: "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (crhtai) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelqonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him" (Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144 D-1145 A).

12 Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem, nn. 18-24, AAS LXXVIII, 1986, 826-831. Cf. also Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 438, 689, 690, 695, 727.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
20 September 1995, page 3
L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

Ecce Jason: I'm afraid there's no way we can agree that the matter is settled, at least in your favor, because all you have done in your recent post is put forth things that I've already addressed. One point, however, is the matter of principle and principal, which it appears I didn't actually address well enough previously. Perhaps a further clarification is in order.

This actually doesn't suprise me at all. Remember, the Latin does not differentiate between proienai and ekporeuesthai, and every time the the word procedere is used in Latin, ekporeuesthai is the word translated in Greek regardless of the actual intent of the Latin usage. As has been stated, ekporeuesthai represents sole origin, but procedere does not, and the Latins have never had a problem with the writings of St. Athanasius where it claims the Father is the sole fount of deity.

As for prinicple being translated as arche, I actually covered that much earlier in the thread when I brought up principaliter (EDIT: On second check, it appears that must have been in one of the posts that got deleted, so I'll put it here). Principalis and principium have the same root: princip-, which means leader or ruler. When used in Latin, however, principium has a much different connotation, and applies merely to a starting reference between two compared points. It is principal that means ruler, not principle, but in translating they would both use the Greek arche, which is the equivalent of the Latin princip-. Again, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas clearly distinguish between principium (starting at) and principaliter (from the top). So it comes as no suprise to me at all that principium would translate as arche, as it has the same root, but it does not have the same implication. Again, if it did, principaliter would never have been added to the explainations by Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.

Incidently, this distinction can also be seen in Greek, where the term "causitive principle" is used to describe what can not be applied to the Son, and arche is what usually get's translated as principium, or principle.

On the subject of John Beccus I won't go into each point because they all pretty much say the same thing. In this case, John Beccus was doing little more than what some of the Greek Bishops at the Council of Florence did, which is to accept with some personal conviction that the Latins were right. Again, Beccus' statements to the Pope would have been translated procedere when he said ekporeuesthai, but procedere means general procession (proienai) where ekporeuesthai means sole derivitive procession (in Greek connotation). There would be no reason for the Latins to assume that Beccus meant anything more by "procedere" than general procession.

My reason for stating that his view was heretical is precisely because I pressume he was saying ekporeuesthai and aitia, both with the implication of "sole derivitive origin", which is not what Latin's have ever held. As for where you say that there is no doubt that his view is the same as Rome's, you only provide Beccus' own words on the matter in support of Rome. You do not present any kind of cross-study of the words involved. You don't demonstrate that the Latins understood ekporeuesthai to mean "sole derivative origin", which would have directly contradicted the writings of Athanasius. The same recommendation I gave above for the Council of Florence applies here: every time a Greek says ekporeuesthai, hear it as proienai on the Latin side, because that's what proceed properly means when used in Latin.

No, that is an assumption that doesn't follow from the actual Latin used, and the fact that interpreters were used, and that the actual definitions of the words ekporeuesthai and aitia were never once discussed in Council. Furthermore, he says that he rejects that the Son is arche, which as you stated above is the root of monarch. In Latin, however, principal is used to mean monarch, but both principalis and principium come from the root princip-, which means ruler. Now he may very well be rejecting the notion of the Son as any kind of principle in the Latin sense, but if he's doing so he's going beyond the statements of the Council of 1285.

For what it's worth, modern Orthodox, espescially in the "Reply to the Clarification", recognize that there is a different implication of principle in Latin. The fact that arche and princip are roots meaning the same thing does not help things when principle and principal are two utterly different words. Incidently, these words come down to us in English with entirely different meanings even today, despite sharing the exact same root. In fact, they have no meanings in common whatsoever, yet princip would still be translated as a single word arche in Greek.

What we are dealing with is a word in Greek that seems to be used to encompass two different meanings in Latin (arche = principal (ruler, prime) and principle (starting point in a given relation)) and a Latin word that is used to encompass two different meanings in Greek (procedere = proienai (general procession) and ekporeuesthai (procession from a derivative origin). We also have the matter of causa and aitia, which are also mistakenly linked as causa has not derivative implications, whereas aitia does. I don't think it's a coincidence that these also seem to be the very words in contention here.

Actually, this is very much key. When Montenero says that there is only one cause and one principle in the Trinity, he's not speaking double-talk, he's completely serious. Think about it, if Montenero meant what you think he means when speaking to Mark (which I will address in a moment), he'd be saying that the Son is the source of the Son as well, and this is argued against vehemently by the Latins in other times and places. Specifically, it was condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council (a Council upheld by the Latins as Ecumenical, but which had little or no Eastern participation), which stated that the common substance of the Trinity could in no way be taken as the source of the persons of the Trinity. Here is what it says according to the library at EWTN:

This directly rules out any kind of "sole origin" of the Holy Spirit on the part of the Son and the Father together by means of the Father and Son sharing a common substance. All statements by Latins must be viewed in this context. It also rules out any kind of rendering of ekporeusis from both the Father and the Son by virtue of common substance, poor translation of Lyons II admitted. Lyons II was held after the Fourth Lateran Council, so it was either a) mistranslated into Greek, as ekporeusis would require a consubstantial origin, or b) Lyons II, and with it the Council of Florence, can NOT be said to be Ecumenical Councils at all, at least on these points, because they directly violate a previously dogmatized Truth.

As you know, no Ecumenical Council can overturn a previous Ecumenical Council, even if not everyone knew that the previous one was Ecumenical. There is an absolute rule of priority in the Catholic understanding of Ecumenical Councils, or else there is no Ecumenical Council at all. Personally I hold to option a) above, but I admit that option b) is an interesting possibility. Option b) might delight the Orthodox, however :p

Reread what Montenero said in the context of the Fourth Lateran Council, though. He says that procession is common to both, yes, but remember that procedere in Latin has the meaning of proienai in Greek. He must have been speaking that way, or else his view is condemned over 200 years prior at the Fourth Lateran Council. After all, what is common to both is their nature/i], or essence/substance, and the Fourth Lateran Council explicitely says that the nature is not the derivative source of any person of the Trinity. Regardless, he does [i]not say that ekporeusis is common to both, he says procession is common to both. Again, that is usually translated into Greek as ekporeusis, but even a casual look through Latin writings will show that its actually used in Latin as the word proienai is in Greek, as a very general kind of procession, not as indicating sole origin. This comes to us in English use of the word procession as well, as we speak of funeral processions and such.

There is little sense to keep going back to the translation of the Council of Lyons II, because all it indicates is precisely the problem I've been saying, which is that procedere is always translated in to Greek as ekporeusis even though there is no distinction in Latin between ekporeusis and proienai. All the Council of Lyons translation demonstrates is exactly what I said happened in my previous post; it does nothing to further the case that the Latins intended "sole derivative origin", espescially in the light of the previous, and Ecumenical, Fourth Lateran Council.

Incidently, this understanding of the difference is exactly what Maximus was talking about when he defended the filioque, and is supported by the Latin's Fourth Lateran Council condemning anyone from saying that it's the common substance that processes. Subsequent history, however, glossed over this fact because neither side understood the other language as clearly as they had in the early days of Maximus. By the time of the Council of Lyons II, they were speaking through interpreters, whereas in earlier times everyone in the Roman Empire, East and West, would have understood both Koine Greek and Latin.

As a matter of fact, I might point out that the growing rift between the two sides on this point almost directly mirrors the growth of the use of Byzantine (Imperial) Greek in the East to the exclusion of Koine and Latin, while the West abandoned fluency in Koine Greek and began to rely solely on the Latin Vulgate. Prior to this time, even though folks like Augustine and Athanasius were saying things that would later be called heretical, or at least unclear, by either side, neither the Greeks nor the Latins opposed their writings. This is because both sides had a fluency in the language of the other, and folks like Maximus could step in and explain things clearly without having to speak through interpreters when an issue did infrequently arise.

On a final note, I must again reiterate that the reason the Latins insist on saying that the whole hypostasis proceeds from the Son is purely in order to preserve the unity of the Holy Spirit, not to indicate any kind of derivative element to the Son. After all, if they said that the whole hypostasis does not proceed (proienai) from the Son, then they'd be putting division into the Person of the Holy Spirit, suggesting that only a portion of Him came "through the Son". It is purely in keeping with the unity of the Trinity, both East and West.

RayK: Yes, as you see, and as both of us as Latins have implicitely understood and been taught, the Father is the sole derivative source of the Holy Spirit. There is no room for discussion or debate about this within the Latin Church. That much has come from the mouth of the Pope himself in recent years, and has been implicitely understood for 600 years in the Latin Church. That is why the "ripple effect" you mentioned earlier has never appeared in the Latin Church's theology; such a notion is explicitely forbidden by the Fourth Lateran Council.

Peace be with you, and God bless!

Ghosty,

Please forgive me for my exasperated tone here, but tt this point I really don't know what more to say. I don't know why, after all the work I cited, you say that Beccus did little more than accept with personal conviction that the Latins were right. On the contrary, he wrote numerous works, both initial works in favor of the union and then later "refutations" of Gregory of Cyprus's Tomus. He corresponded with the Pope and met with papal envoys. He even opposed the union at first, was thrown in jail, and then only changed his mind after studying texts and developing arguments for the Latin doctrine. Gill says repeatedly that his doctrine just was the Latin doctrine; Gill says repeatedly that his competence was amazing and that his works were a "mine of patristic learning." Also, I didn't say that there is no doubt that Beccus's view is the same as Rome's, Fr. Joseph Gill, SJ, one of the authorities on the attempted unions at Lyons and Florence, said this. So -- and now I say this with frustrated honesty; forgive me -- all of your "presumptions" about what John Beccus must have said or thought run contrary to absolutely everything else that I've ever read in the scholarly literature about John Beccus and the union councils, including the scholarship of an orthodox Catholic scholar who specializes in exactly these affairs and knows Greek and Latin. By the way, Fr. Gill also translated the Greek acts of Florence. The man must at least sort of know what he's talking about.

Regarding the rest, I know that Latin does not distinguish between ekporeusis and proienai. I know everyone agrees that the Father is the "sole fount of deity." These are not the issues here. You seem to think that I'm suggesting that the filioque implies that the Son and the Father together are the fount of deity. I don't think that. I think it does make the Son a mediating cause in some form of the Spirit's hypostatic procession (and if you doubt this, see the Montenero quotes below). That's all that's been the issue.

You say: Again, this seems to be missing the point. I know the Latins think the Father is the only one who gets to have "principaliter" applied. That's not the issue. I know the Latins say the Father is the sole source, sole ultimate cause, etc., etc., ad infinitum. But do they make the son a "principle?" Do they make the Son a mediating cause in some sense of the Spirit's personal (hypostatic) procession? Yes.

Regarding Michael Balsamon's repudiation of Florence, you say of my words: First, of course it doesn't "follow;" I only said my assumption "makes sense," not that it followed necessarily. I still stand by that. The only point I was making was that Florence might have used the Greek words that we all agree are inappropriate, even if it didn't discuss them and figure out what they meant.

Also, the Greek and English translations of Balsamon's statements were done by Fr. Gill, who, as I mentioned, knows Greek and Latin. He doesn't stop to mention anything about these words, as far as I can see.

See my private message to you regarding this point.

Regarding Montenero, you suggest I've got him all wrong, and that if I'm right, he's saying something that the 4th Lateran Council condemns. I never said that he thought the Spirit proceeds from the nature, though, which is what the 4th Lateran condemns; I'm familiar with the 4th Lateran and its response to Abbot Joachim of Fiori.

In all honesty, Ghosty, I'm saying this without meaning offense: have you read Fr. Gill's work on Florence that I linked you to? Have you read the dialogues? I'll just throw a few other thing from Montenero out there:

"The Holy Spirit receives being also from the Son and so must proceed also from him."

"John: . . . The Spirit has his being from the Son and depends on him as on a cause."

Montenero's point is that the persons of the Son and the Father are both together the cause of the Spirit's being. I never said he denied the Fourth Lateran Council or thought the procession comes from the shared nature. That's a different issue.

Let's relate this to the Photian Schism. First, your point begs the question, because it already assumes that the prior council was the true ecumenical council and that the second one wasn't; if you assume that, of course you're going to say that the former one couldn't be overturned. But if you don't grant that assumption, your point doesn't follow. But even further, the funny thing is that the Catholics themselves didn't believe what you're suggesting until around the 16th century, so I don't see it as being an "absolute rule." Read Fr. Francis Dvornik's work. Regarding the Photian schim, the Latins regarded the Photian Council (879-870) as the true council, and the acts of the previous council were actually destroyed in the Greek form, if I remember correctly, to reiterate that it had been overturned. The Latins and the Greeks both knew this, although they were often nervous about referring to either council as ecumenical. What's also telling is that later on, after Florence, the Latins wanted to refer to Florence as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, suggesting that the viewed the other councils as less than ecumenical. But I weary of talking too much here; read Fr. Dvornik's "Which Councils are Ecumenical?" I linked to it earlier in this thread too.

I would respectfully like to leave this discussion here and leave you with the thoughts I've sent you in PM, as I am clearly losing my patience and would not like to become more uncharitable then perhaps I have already been. Forgive me if I have overstepped the bounds of charity.

Thanks again, and God bless,
Jason

Ecce Jason: It seems you're getting drawn thin, and perhaps it really is time that you take a break from this conversation, as you yourself have been insisting you would for days now. Know that I take nothing you say personally, and I hope that neither do you.

That being said, I'll address the matter of the Ecumenical nature of Councils first, since it's a side note and may as well be taken care of quickly.

It seems you don't understand what makes a Catholic Council Ecumenical in nature. All it requires is the ratification and assent of the Bishop of Rome, successor to Peter, as true and applying to the faithful everywhere, and that it not contradict previous Infallible declarations, whether they be made by a Council, by the Pope, for from the deposit of Faith by the Apostles. Whether it's known that this assent was given comes 1000 years later is irrelevant, as is the fact that this understanding came in the 16th century.

When the understanding was come to, and this history and necessity of it (as there are gaping holes in the Orthodox understanding of Ecumenical Councils that leads to results that are problematic at best, such as some counting eight, others counting nine, others counting three, ect.) is a topic in and of itself which I will not get into here, all Councils were reviewed and categorized as either Local or Ecumenical. That is why the numbering of them had to be renewed. The Seven undivided Councils, however, met with no change whatsoever, and actually fit perfectly into this system of understanding.

It honestly troubles me that, as a Catholic, you don't know about this understanding and how it's applied, as it is stated explicitely in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Now as to your question about my reading of Fr. Gill's work, I stated above that I have, and in fact I read it before you sent it to me. I even comment directly on them, and link to them in a previous post. You ask me that "in all honesty", yet in your honesty you reveal that you haven't been carefully reading what I've been typing, as I have a whole post dealing entirely with the dialogue as translated by Fr. Gill

Now all that being said, I'm going to leave this discussion with a little tidbit from my PM response to you, as I think it will clarify things for many who may read it. I had been operating under an assumption that the whole Acts of the Council of Florence had been read and understood from a Latin perspective, and that people were having trouble fitting the Greek theology into the Latin statements on their own theology. It appears I may have been mistaken. Therefore I must quote the Council of Florence from a different paragraph, the one preceding and introducing the paragraphs we've been discussing.

Before I do, however, I must point out that Latin theology, which was formed long before the Byzantine theology of Essence/Energies by Gregory Palamas in the 14th Century, does not and never has expressed God in terms of a difference between the immediate and immanent Essence of God and His eternal Energies. Rather, going back at least as far as Augustine, and finding its root and support from the earliest Fathers both East and West, it speaks of God in terms of eternal and temporal, or non-eternal. When Latins speak of the eternal aspect of God, it includes both the Essence and Energies described by Gregory Palamas. No distinction is made, and none is really required within the Latin framework. The Byzantine expression of Palamas still fits neatly within the Latin eternal/non-eternal understanding, even though the languages are quite different and address different things. Keeping in mind the Latin understanding of eternal and non-eternal:

First, notice that it states that the Latins hold that the Father is the sole source of all deity, and then explains that it means the Son and the Holy Spirit as individuals, not as a grouping. The fact that is says "of the Son" and "of the Holy Spirit" shows that they are being seperated, and both to be considered "deity" in this context. This means that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit. This is dogmatically defined law of Faith for all Catholics and Orthodox, and is set forth here by the Latins themselves in a dogmatic pronouncement by an Ecumenical Council.

Next it says that the Latins in no way intend by saying that because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, that the Son doesn't receive from the Father. Receive what? We need look no further than the previous statement of the Father being the sole source of the Holy Spirit. The Son receives the Holy Spirit in His entirety, essence and hypostasis, proceeding forth from the Father in an immanent manner (ekporeusis), and then processeses (proinai) the Holy Spirit eternally. In Byzantine theology this is called "manifesting the Holy Spirit", and occurs in the division of Energies. Since the Latins are speaking only of eternity vs. non-eternity, however, the distinction for them is irrelevant. In fact, they didn't even know about the distinction because the subject was never broached in the dialogue (Mark Eugenicus was silenced by his own Emperor when the Latins put a question to him that would require explaining the distinction, and the matter was never revived).

In light of this understanding, we must see why the Latins were so insistant on saying that the whole hypostasis proceeds from the Son and Father as by one principle. Given the explainations above in previous posts about how principle is used in Latin, they wanted to make it clear that the Father alone, and not the Son on His own, was giving the procession, in the general Latin sense, to the Holy Spirit. Without this we would have two Holy Spirits, one from the Father, and one "manifesting" from the Son. If the Son does not project the whole hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, which He receives in whole and complete from the source of deity, the Father, then we have a failing of unity and dignity within the Trinity. Making the Son part of the single principle, the middle point that the Holy Spirit passes through if you will, they were attempting to preserve both traditions' understanding of the Trinity, not subjugate or destroy the Byzantine one (which they didn't even fully know of).

In fact, when viewed in terms of eternal/non-eternal, this declaration is actually 100% true of the Byzantine model. The Son is in no way cause, nor is He median in the immanent procession of the Holy Spirit, as that would require him to be median between Himself and the Father. Despite the fact that this Latin proclaimation fully preserves the unity of the Byzantine understanding, it was later repudiated by the Orthodox on the grounds we've been discussing, namely that the translation in Greek really was heretical, and really it's not such a bad thing that they repudiated it, as they would have to had become heretics to honor it as written and understood.

The fact is that, as Catholics, whether Eastern or Western, Latin or Byzantine, we have nothing to fear from the Declaration of the Council of Florence. It preserves both of our traditions intact, as it addresses both the immanent and the energy, eternal and non-eternal, without compromising either. Had linguistic problems not arisen, we really might not even be speaking of this as seperated brethren today, IMO.

Furthermore, as can be seen this is testimony to what both RayK and myself have said all along from personal experience and study, that the Latin Church has never taught that the Son took part in the origin of the Holy Spirit, nor that the Holy Spirit derives any of His being or Personhood from the Son. It fully supports the Latin assertion that the Holy Spirit is a complete gift, given freely by the Father to the Son, and given by the Son for all eternity. It is the very foundation of the Theology of the Body, and other the other Latin Trinitarian theologies, such as those of Augustine (who originated the "gift" language) and Thomas Aquinas.

I can't speak for Fr. Coffey, as I've yet to even see a copy of his article, but if he is indeed asserting what Apotheoun is claiming he's asserting, then he's not only innovating, but he's in direct violation of the dogmatic decrees of an Ecumenical Council. Of course that wouldn't be the first time for Fr. Coffey, who has yet to renounce (to my knowledge) his last heresy. :p

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Forgive me, but this is almost reducing to assertion after assertion.

I know the present Catholic theory behind Ecumenical Councils. I'm well aware of it, well aware of the Catechism, and so on. My point is only that that wasn't the definitive Catholic theory behind Ecumenical Councils until the 16th century, when that became their theory in response to Protestantism. Read Fr. Dvornik's work.

As for Father Gill's work on Florence, I saw that you cited some portions of the dialogue. That doesn't mean that you read the whole thing. There's no need to put my "honesty" in scare-quotes; my question came from a genuine incomprehension as to why you would think I was asserting that Montenero was denying what was condemned at the Fourth Lateran Council.

Your statement about the theology of essence/energies being formulated by Gregory Palamas in the 14th century evidences a lack of historical familiarity with the issue. If you think this theology developed in the 14th century, first, it would be good re-read the Tomus of 1285 and figure out what's going on at the Council of Blachernae, because that definition only makes sense in terms of essence/energies. Then, if you want more, go back to St. Maximos the Confessor (the saint whose name I took, incidentally), whose defense of the two wills in Christ and of the free will of the saints in the eschaton depends on the distinction he makes between essence and energies; incidentally, his defense is the backdrop for the Sixth Ecumenical Council. You could also look at St. John of Damascus. If you want to go further, go back to Gregory of Nyssa and the other Cappadocians (some of whom I cited to you in PM), and also check out Dionysius the Areopagite, and then go on to Athanasius, all of whom use this terminology and all of whose theology seems to depend on the existence of this distinction. Of course they're not as explicit as Gregory Palamas, but saying that this amounts to the theology of essence/energies developing in the 14th century is like saying that the Latins had no theory of divine simplicity until Thomas Aquinas. Here are some books for you to read on the topic:

(1) Crisis in Byzantium by Aristeides Papadakis -- this one explains Blachernae and how it relates to essence/energies, not to mention the Orthodox understanding of the filioque

(2) The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky -- this one starts with Dionysius the Areopagite and basically builds from there to theology of the Eastern Church

(3) Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor by Joseph Farrell -- this one is the definitive work on Maximus' defense of free choice, both in the human will of Christ and of the saints in the eschaton; if you can get this, do so (it's hard to find)

(4) Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom by David Bradshaw -- here's the description from the back of this book: "Historians of philosophy have tended to limit the study of Christian philosophy during the Middle Ages to the medieval West. This book presents the thought of the Greek Fathers as a significant and substantial alternative. Focussing on the central issue of the nature of God and the relationship between God's being and activity, David Bradshaw traces the history of energeia [energy] and related concepts from their starting point . . . into thinkers such as Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas (in the West) and Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas (in the East). The result is a powerful comparative history of philosophical thought in the two halves of Christendom, providing a philosophical backdrop to the schism between the eastern and western churches." Note that he traces the conception into Augustine; yes, that means it was around even before him. Check it out, it's very up to date; just came out in 2004.

In any case, I agree with you that the Latins don't have an essence/energies distinction. I would say, "Yeah, that's where the mistakes come from."

Finally, your gloss of what you believe the Latins were saying at Florence is great! In fact, it sounds entirely Orthodox at points! I only wish that I could agree that this is what was meant at Florence. Again, Montenero says explicitly that the Son is a cause of the Spirit's being. Furthermore, you note that Florence says the Son receives of the Father, and then you ask: "Receives what?" You say: But actually, what Florence says is that He receives everything except to be the Father. Being the Father includes begetting the Son, so of course the Son doesn't receive that. However, it doesn't include the procession of the Spirit, because Florence says explicitly that the Son receives that, so that the Spirit even proceeds from the Son. It doesn't say that the Son receives the already-existing Holy Spirit, it says He receives the very procession of the Spirit. You'll say that this doesn't mean that the Son processes the Spirit's existence because the Father is sole "source," but "source" is a stronger word than "cause," and what we're worried about is making sure that the Father is also sole "cause." Florence says exactly the opposite. It even says that the Son is a cause of both the eternal essence and subsistent being of the Spirit. The Father can still be sole source (ultimate cause) and still give the procession of the Spirit's existence to the Son as well. That's the Latin theology. That's what Fr. Gill thinks, that what John Beccus thought, that's what Montenero says, and that's how it's understood. So yes, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

You also suggest that the Latins weren't trying to "subjugate" the Byzantine understanding. I don't see any support for that, so I take it as another assertion. However, there are considerations against it, such as the fact that the Pope, before Florence convened, demanded that the Patriarch (or was it the Emperor?) get down on the ground and kiss his feet, or that the Pope, after Florence ended, made sure that the Greeks said the filioque in the Creed, and not only once, but they were made to stop at that part of the Creed and sing "and from the Son" three times in a row. Also, you might want to look into Pope Benedict XIV's later encyclical, Allatae Sunt, which addresses how the Greeks must say the Creed. It's all about what the Pope will "allow" them to do, and how they are only "allowed" to say the Creed without the filioque as long as everyone is "certain" that they accept the Latin dogma. It also mentions how, at some points, Pope's have had to "require" the Greeks to say "and the Son" in their Creed in order to "remove doubts" about their orthodoxy and to "try their faith" in the Latin doctrine. I agree that things are not about "subjugation" now, but I'm not sure that's borne out in history. In fact, I'm not even entirely sure that that's the case now; there's a book out by Eastern Catholic Archbishop Elias Zoghby called We Are All Schismatics, and in that book he notes that Rome annually sends out a questionnaire to all Eastern Catholic bishops and patriarchs that asks them "Which pontifical congregation do you depend on?" Zoghby, bless him, crosses out the words each year and writes something like, "these terms are not correct." He also mentions a work put out by the "Congregation for the Oriental Churches" in 1981 that mentions the "other countries subjected to the jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation," but I'll not read into that.

Finally, personal experience that you haven't been taught that the Son derives his being from the Son as well amounts to proof only for the fact that you haven't been taught this, not that it isn't dogma. Apotheoun mentions to you the fact that he was a Latin Rite Catholic for 17 years precisely because he was taught this. Fr. Gill accepts it as well. John Montenero explicitly says it. The Council of Florence hints at it, especially in light of Montenero's defense of its doctrine, if not says it outright.

Anyway, this will be my last post in this thread.

Thank you, and God bless,
Jason

And my point is that it doesn't matter when it became the definative theory, because it applies to every single one of the Councils that the Catholic Church considers Ecumenical, and rules out every single one that is not. The "second" Eighth was not the only Council that claimed to be an Ecumenical Council that was subsequently rejected, as there have been many. I've read Dvornik's work on the subject, and with all due respect, the time that the theory was first applied across all of history has no bearing on the subject.

And your incomprehension, and my misunderstanding, comes from you not comprehending what's being said with "Latin eyes" in the actual Declaration, as I proceeded to explain in the same post.

This would actually be "reading back" the Palamas theory on to previous times and teachings, which is precisely the mistake that so many Orthodox (not Eastern Catholic) scholars make when working with it. While the Palamas theory most definately fits previous times, in that it is wholly orthodox and does not conflict with what was taught, it's absurd to say that it was the teaching of earlier times, as the Latin theory had been around at least since Augustine, and long before East and West was in Schism, long before even the filioque was added to the Creed in Latin.

The rejection by the Council of Belarmae, and the language used, indicates nothing more or less than a rightful rejection of the language used by Beccus, in which he applied ekporeusis to the power of the Son, something even Latins deny, and which is defined against at least by the Council of Florence.

The existance of the distinction in terminology is not in question, as Latins themselves made this same distinction by describing the difference in how the Father was principle to the Holy Spirit (principaliter, immanent) and the Son was principle (mediately, energetically). The only difference is that there was no need in their eyes to seperate these two because they spoke only in terms of eternity/non-eternity, which is a distinction not made by simply speaking of Energies.

I never said that they don't have the distinction. On the contrary, it's quite explicit in Latin theology. I said that Latin theology frames such questions in terms of eternal and non-eternal, so the distinctions become irrelevant in Latin argument. The distinctions have been made, as I said, from the time of Augustine. To say that they don't have such a distinction at all shows even more that you are having trouble reading with "Latin eyes".

Again you aren't reading with Latin eyes, and it's causing you quite a bit of misunderstanding. To be the Father is to be the sole source of deity, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This means that he does not receive, nor participate in, what Byzantines call ekporeusis, or the immanent procession of the Holy Spirit. This is explicitly shown in the Council of Florence, you're simply not seeing it.

And this brings us full circle back to the term causa, which I addressed in my first post. It also relates again to the fact that the Latins perfectly understand the distinction you are trying to make with me, and made it themselves in the 5th century. In light of this, the Son is only "cause" in the expression of Energies, in the Manifestation of the Spirit, not in the immanent being of the Holy Spirit. Again this is expliticly dealt with in the Decree, yet you're having trouble seeing it clearly.

I refer here to Palamas' theory, which the Latins didn't know of. This is made clear even in Gill's dialogue. The Greeks were not allowed by the Emperor to bring it up, so the Latins never could speak on it.

If Apotheoun was indeed taught this, he was taught wrong, as it's dogmatically defined against, and so much has been said by the Pope himself. It wouldn't be the first time a Catholic was miseducated; after all Fr. Coffey still teaches at universities despite denying the Resurection of Christ.

Peace be with you, and God bless, and stay away this time

Ghosty ..

check your private mail (a different subject)

-ray

after all, God did not put you here to learn theology- He put you here to pay attention to your conscience in the midst of the events which he arranges for you each day. Thank you Ray. If I could just remember that. I think I'll nail-gun that to my forehead.

Hey - long time no-see (or no-notice).

I do hope all is well with you. Nice to read your typeing.

-rya