I read both comments and because you fail to distinguish between the Spirit's hypostatic procession of origin (i.e., His ekporeusis), which is from the Father alone as sole font of divinity, and the Spirit's progression (proienai) as energy, but not as person, which is from the Father through the Son, I can say unequivocally that you and I do not share a common Trinitarian faith.
Mar Odisho says "Now in the manner of the soul which is possessed of three-fold energy; mind, word, and life, and is one and not three; even so should we conceive of the THREE IN ONE, ONE IN THREE" (Book of Marganitha, Part I, Chapter V). The three-fold energy are the 3 Q
nome, (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one Kyana (general essence). We equate energy with Q
noma, and so an energetic progression is the same as a Q
nomic procession. We do not make a distinction between one procession as Q
noma, and another progression as Energy.
In other words, we do not have "Essence, Energy, and a Triad of Hypostases" as Greek Theology teaches. We have one Kyana, and a Tleethayutha (Triad, Trinity) of Qnome (= three-fold energy). One in three, three in One. That is my understanding so far.
The Spirit can never be said to proceed from or of the essence that is common to the Father and the Son, because the divine essence is common to all three persons, and not merely to the Father and the Son, and to say otherwise is to posit two God's (i.e., the Father and the Son taken together, and the Spirit taken alone as essentially distinct from them). Moreover, if you try to avoid ditheism by saying that the Father and the Son share a common essence, and that the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from that common essence, which is also His essence, that would be like saying that the Spirit as person proceeds from Himself, which is utter nonsense. Now, if you, and all Chaldeans (i.e., if your comments are truly representative of the Chaldean tradition), really hold to these theological ideas, it follows that you (and all Chaldeans) are making the same Sabellian error as the Scholastics on this issue, and I cannot in good faith assent to anything that confuses the Spirit's procession (ekporeusis) of origin from the Father alone, with His manifestation (phanerosis) or progression (proienai) as energy from the Father through the Son. His procession of origin and His manifestation are two distinct realities, which if confused lead to either Sabellian modalism or ditheism (or even tritheism) depending upon the particular circumstances of the case.
As I explained, the way we understand "The Holy Spirit's Procession from the Father" means the Holy Spirit receives from the Father, the Divine Kyana and the Father's Qnoma, from/by/through the Q
noma of the Son. This is the same meaning of the phrase "Dmin Abba w-abra" (from the Father and the Son) used by our Council of Seleucia, and I see the same meaning in Philoxenus Of Mabbug when he says "min kyana d-abba w-abra" (from the essence of Father and Son). Don't read too much into it. We do not posit two Gods, and the Spirit as a third inferior God. We do say that the Spirit is distinct from the Father, and distinct from the Son, but we do not say that the Spirit is separated from the Father, and separated from the Son. There is one God.
We do not make a Sabellian error simply for the fact that Sabellian modalism is Unitarian, and not Trinitarian. In Sabellianism, there is no distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We, however, do confess a Trinitarian God, a God of three Q
nome. Each Q
noma is individuated but not separated from the other.
Ultimately, your comments appear to negate the Cappadocian principle that anything common to two persons of the Trinity is by definition common to all three, because anything common is by its very nature essential to God, while anything unique, is absolutely unique to one, and only one hypostasis, for to say otherwise is to confuse the three divine persons with the divine nature or essence (see St. Basil's – actually his brother St. Gregory's – Letter number 38).
Anything common to the two Q
nome is common to all three (Divine Kyana), I have no disagreement with that. Anything unique is unique to eachQ
noma (Begetter, Begotten, Proceeding), again no disagreement here. No confusion between the Kyana and Q
nome. By the way, we read mostly the Aramaic Fathers for our primary theology, and any Greek works that have been translated by our Fathers into Aramaic, we read them.
The Son does not have His own particular nature / essence, but is one in nature / essence with the Father, receiving the divine essence from the Father alone through generation (gennasin). The Son is only distinct as person (hypostasis and prosopon), and His hypostasis is eternally caused by the Father alone as the sole personal font of divinity.
According to our theology, the Son has His own particular/individuated/singular essence, which we call Q
noma. He is one in Kyana (Divine Essence) with the Father. He receives from the Father, through eternal generation, both the Divine Essence of the Trinity and the Father's Q
noma. The Son is distinct as Q
noma, and His Q
noma is eternally caused by the Father alone (Since the Father is the cause of all).
I do not agree, the Son is generated by the Father personally, that is, the Son is from the Father's person, receiving in the process the common divine nature / essence. Generation (and procession) are personal properties proper to the Father's hypostasis and not to the common (what you called "general") divine essence. Once again your comments betray a confusion of person (hypostasis and prosopon) and essence (ousia), which – as I see it – is nothing more than a form of Sabellianism.
"Bir d-kyana d-babeh" is the equivalent of "homoousious" for you guys. This is how we speak in the Creed, which literally is interpreted "Son of the essence of His father", which we equivalently interpret as "One in essence with the Father". In this part of the Creed, we're simply saying that the Son is one with the Father by Kyana.
In the earlier part of the Creed, we say the Son is "the only Son of God and First-Born of all creatures, who was begotten from his Father before all the ages and was not made", and this is the specific reference to the Son being eternally generated from the Father. I agree that the Son is from the Father's Q
noma (which is your hypostasis, or the English "person", though this is an English limitation, and does not convey the full sense of Q
noma which is distinct from the term Parsopa-Person. Its ok, though not preferred, in the Trinity, but specifically in the Incarnation we definitely don't equate the terms Qnoma with Parsopa-Person).
I agree that generation and procession is the Father's, that is why I spoke earlier of the Son being eternally generated from the Father, which means to me that the Son eternally receives from the Father the Divine Kyana and Qnome of the Father, and the "Holy Spirit's procession from the Father", means that that Holy Spirit eternally receives from the Father, the Divine Kyana and the Father's Qnoma by the Qnoma of the Son.
We don't equate the Parsopa (what you call prosopon) with the Q
noma (what you call hypostasis). This is what I meant by a "tripartite" in the above post in that we have Kyana (what you call Ousia), Q
noma, and Parsopa, and each means something. Kyana as the General Essence, Q
noma as the individuated essence, and Parsopa as the Person.
Essences do not act in any sense, only persons act.
The Father (who is subject of His Q
noma) acts, the Son (who in the Trinity is subject of His Divine Q
noma, and in the Incarnation as Parsopa subject of His Divine Q
noma and Human Q
noma) acts, and the Holy Spirit (who is subject of His Q
noma) acts. In other words, The Divine Kyana does not act.
Sadly, based upon the above comment, you appear to be embracing a form of the heresy of Nestorianism. Christ is not a human person (prosopon or hypostasis) at all, but is a divine person (prosopon and hypostasis) who has assumed a complete human nature (ousia or physis).
The Byzantine tradition, following the teaching of the Cappdocians, holds that a prosopic (to use the Greek term) distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit, taken alone is insufficient to safeguard the distinct reality of the persons, and that a hypostatic distinction (i.e., a distinction of hypostases) is also necessary in order to avoid Sabellian modalism in Triadology and Nestorianism in Christology. In the Trinity hypostasis / prosopon together distinguish the persons, while that which is common is ascribed to the divine essence (ousia) or nature (physis) alone. Energy is also common to the persons, because it is the essential energy of the Trinity, and in this sense it is singular, but it is manifest in multiform fashion because it is enacted by the persons in distinct ways, and that is why the divine energies are not merely essential, but are also enhypostatic.
The understanding of the Church of the East as regards the Incarnation is as follows:
In Christ, there are two Kyane (General Essences), two Q
nome (Individuated, but not personalized Essences) in one Parsopa (Person). This theology has been declared orthodox in the Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. Here is a diagram that explains it, and which led to the acceptance of this theology as orthodox:
This is not Nestorianism, in how this has been defined through the centuries. Nestorianism has been known to mean that Christ is two Parsope-Persons, the Parsopa of the Son in a moral union with the Parsopa of a Man, thus diving and separating Christ. This is not what the Church of the East teaches, in that there is only one Person in Christ, the Lord Jesus Christ, a true inseparable and indivisible Union between the Son and a Human Q
noma, therefore the One Person, the Lord Jesus Christ was born, and the Lord Jesus Christ died on the Cross.
So, we say that the Son did not merely assume the concept of the general human essence (Kyana), but that He assumed a real humanity (a particular human body and a human soul - Qnoma), and united it to His Divine Qnoma, and was born as the one Person, the Lord Jesus Christ, with division, without separation, without confusion, and without change.
I have no problem with the way you explain your Byzantine theology, as I do not consider it heretical, but I am required to accept the way the Faith is expressed by my particular Church of the East. I can not always make you understand or make the equivalents of how you describe the Faith using your Greek theology, and in those instances that I try, I may miss something or make something sound heretical to you (thus having labeled me and my tradition as Latinized, Sabbelian, and Nestorian). The Fact that we are in full communion presupposes that we have the same Faith, though we do not often fully comprehended each others' expression of the Faith, I trust that our Churches know fully well why they are in full communion with each other, and that the differences in our theologies are no obstacle to full communion. And, since I'm still studying my heritage, then I might not always give the best explanation of it (and thereby lead you and others to misunderstandings), and so if I truly make a mistake and I find out about it, then I will correct it.
Now if Qnoma meant hypostasis, this statement would be orthodox, but since you seem to connect it to a concept of "singular" essence, which ultimately is a confused notion that appears basically Sabellian and Nestorian, I cannot hold the comment to be truly Orthodox. The Son is not the Son of the divine essence, but is the Son of the Father, who – as the Father’s Son – is proper to the divine essence because He is generated (gennesin) from the Father’s person.
In the Trinity, Q
noma is equivalent to your Hypostasis, but not in the Incarnation, because your definition of Hypostasis is that of Person, whereas for us, Q
noma is defined not as Person, but as Singular Essence according to the teaching of Mar Bawai the Great (our Christological Church Father who formulated the Christology of our Church of the East). So, in order for both of us to be speaking on the same level on the Incarnation, your Single Hypostasis (your One Hypostasis in Two Physis - One Person in Two Natures) would be equivalent to our Single Parsopa (Two Kyane, Two Qnome, One Parsopa - Two General Essences, Two Singular Essences, One Person). Essentially, you'd be saying that Jesus is One Person, God and Man, and we would be saying the same thing that Jesus is One Person, God and Man. And since we also both agree that there is no division and no separation in the Lord Jesus Christ.
But this comment fails to really take into account my ongoing criticism of your position, since you have – all throughout your posts – failed to make a real distinction between the Spirit's hypostatic procession of origin (i.e., His ekporeusis) from the person of the Father alone, and His progression (proienai) or manifestation (phanerosis) not as person (hypostasis or prosopon), but as energy, which is from the Father through the Son. The Son is not a cause within the Godhead, nor do the Father and the Son share a common nature that is somehow separate or different than the nature of the Holy Spirit, for that would lead to ditheism. Now, even if I were to reinterpret your last bullet point in an Orthodox fashion, I would still have to say that the comment is false, because the Spirit does not receive His existence from or through the Son, but is only made manifest through the Son, not as person, but as energy. Thus, based on everything that you have said so far, I do not believe that we share a common Triadological faith, and – in fact – some of your more recent comments make me believe that we also do not share a common Christological faith.
And I have explained above.