www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Dialogue and Faith

As Robert Sinkewicz made clear in the prologue to his translation of the One Hundred Fifty Chapters, one must be careful not to read St. Gregory's comments in chapters 36 and 37 as an endorsement of the Augustinian approach to the Trinity. Here is the pertinent section from his introduction:


"Extending the analogy, Palamas noted that no word exists without πνεῦμα, and so the divine Logos possesses also the Holy Spirit, while both have their origination in the Father. Here too, some distinctions are necessary in the various meanings of πνεῦμα. The breath which accompanies a word passing through our lips is not a suitable analogy because of its strictly corporeal reference. The incorporeal spirit accompanying the immanent or the discursive word is no more suitable because temporality is involved. The only fitting analogy is that of πνεῦμα as the ineffable love of the Begetter for the ineffably begotten Word. At this point, Palamas did not specify the exact nature of the human analogy, but rather went on to conclude that the Logos reveals to us the Spirit's distinctive ὕπαρξις and the fact that he belongs to both the Father and the Word. More precisely, the Spirit derives his being from the Father, but is sent from both the Father and the Word to those who are worthy (c. 36).

In the next chapter Palamas clarified the analogy of the Spirit as love. In man this has its foundation in the divine image and likeness to be found in the mind. The relation of the mind to its immanent knowledge is described as ἔρως or ἔφεσις. Because of the similarities with Augustine's trinitarian analogies there is a great temptation to start reading Augustine's ideas into the text of Palamas. The temptation should be avoided. Gregory spoke of the knowledge naturally inherent in the mind, but he did not equate this with the mind's knowledge of itself (notitia sui). He spoke of the relation of the mind to knowledge immanent in it as one of love, but he did not describe this as the mind's intending its self-knowledge (amor sui and voluntas sui). Above all, Palamas very clearly did not conclude that the Holy Spirit is the relation of love between the Father and the Son. Faithful to the Church's tradition, Palamas maintained that the Holy Spirit is identical in every way with the divine goodness (i.e., the divine nature) and with the Father and the Son, except in hypostasis. The Spirit has his own perfect hypostasis, which is defined by its derivation from the Father by procession."

It is also important to note that the Greek word used for love throughout this section of Palamas' text is eros (ἔρως), and not agape (ἀγαπέ).

Moreover, Palamas ends chapter 36 with an affirmation - contrary to Latin teaching - that the Father alone gives subsistent being to the Holy Spirit.

"Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father."

Thank you sir!

I knew there was an easy explanation for it all . . .

But if the Latins agreed to keep the Filioque out of the Creed, surely they could hold onto their musings as "theologoumena?"

Given that the Filioque is official Catholic teaching, that would take some doing . . .

Alex

If it isn't the Filioque, it will be the Immaculate Conception; if it isn't that, it'll be azymes. Having lived and communed with the Orthodox for over fifteen years of my life, I can attest that many of them just can't stand the Latin "style" and that's too bad. It will take lots of prayer and fasting to overcome that one.

Yeah, the separation between East and West is all the fault of those darn Orthodox. If the Orthodox would just be willing to accept all the second millennium innovations of the Roman Church (e.g., papal supremacy, the immaculate conception - and all that flows from that theory, universalist ecclesiology, the scholastic understaning of divine simplicity, etc.) we could all be one. Orthodox are just too set in their ways. They need to embrace the Western idea of doctrinal development and then communion can be restored.

Let us please not lose track of what Bl. JP2 said in Ut Unum Sint: "What unites us is much greater than what divides us".

...and I would also like to remind all posters participating in this thread to post their opinions and ideas in a charitable manner.

Alice, Moderator

That is a great quotation, but is that really true? Can one believe that Vatican I is an ecumenical council and that the bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction and infallibility, and disbelieve those theories at the same time?

I apologize if my comment came off as "uncharitable." In fact my comment was simply an expression of frustration at another post that - from my perspective - yet again made it seem as if the process of ecumenical dialogue is being slowed down by the Orthodox.

And that is exactly my point. I was not trying to blame any one circle for the division. That's history. I was simply trying to indicate that my experience among the Orthodox has led me to the opinion that a great deal of resistance is cultural, not deeply theological. This may be true among Catholic circles too, but it has not been my experience. I believe one can embrace and accept another's theological, liturgical and spiritual expression as orthodox without losing the integrity of one's own. As far as Ecumenical Councils and Pastor Aeternus is concerned, you must know that people of good will are looking for solutions to what seems to be an impasse.

I am all for a solution, but the solution needs to be true to what the Orthodox believe and not just a form of capitulation on their part. After all, it is not the Orthodox who have added doctrines about the papacy, nor have they altered the creed of Constantinople, and they also have not added dogmas about the Virgin Mary that they claim are binding upon everyone (under pain of anathema). I spent 18 years as a Roman Catholic and so I know how Roman Catholics think, and they invariably see the Orthodox as intransigent, i.e., as unwilling to accept the modern Roman Catholic changes to the faith as legitimate. Maybe Roman Catholics need to consider returning to an older way of living and expressing the faith? Just a suggestion of course.

I agree, that is, as long as what is believed is only different in its linguistic expression, but if the difference is substantive no amount of re-wording will suffice to bring about unity.

Is the Father alone the cause of the Holy Spirit's hypostasis, or are the Father and the Son together the cause of His (i.e., the Spirit's) existence?

The Father is, because He has begotten the Son eternally and both are One, and breathe forth the Spirit who in turn breathes back to them inifinite, eternal Trinitarian Life.

I would say that any solutions have to honor and respect what Catholics believe also. Or are you inferring that one is truer and older than the other, and that the rebellious baby just needs to eat his pureed liver?

As I see it, this formulation blurs the personal distinction that exists between the Father and the Son because it gives a hypostatic characteristic that is unique to the Father to the Son also, and in the process it destroys the monarchy of God the Father within the Holy Trinity. The Father alone is the cause of the procession of origin of the Holy Spirit.

Nevertheless, the Father and the Son (with the Holy Spirit) send forth the divine energy, which progresses from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, to the world. But that progression of the Spirit's energies is not the same as the Holy Spirit's procession of origin as person, which - as I said above - comes only from the Father.

To put it another way, God the Father as Father personally generates the Son, and God the Father as Father personally processes the Holy Spirit, and neither of these two distinct realities (generation and procession) is antecedent - temporally or logically - to the other, but both are eternal.

I agree, anything that Roman Catholics believed during the first millennium should be respected, but the filioque as taught by Florence is not the same as the filioque defended by St. Maximos the Confessor in the 7th century (see his letter to Marinus).

I am saying that the ancient faith of the Church is immutable and that the constant changes made to the faith by the Roman Catholic Church is a problem.

Again, it is not the Orthodox who have added to the creed, nor have they proposed the 19th century notion that the office of the bishop of Rome is divinely revealed and that anyone who rejects this modern idea is anathema.

The ancient faith of the Church is immutable, but the expression of that faith is mutable as the ancient councils do attest. If the Catholic Church, Roman or otherwise, has changed the faith, I'm in peril. Apparently, some of the Church Fathers within the first millennium felt that the office of the Bishop of Rome was divinely revealed; so it is hardly a modern idea as you seem to believe. Both Patristic and Biblical evidence points to the universality of the Church. If I'm not mistaken, you like to challenge that one also.