Topic: Filioque... in the East?

[ignatius]

Is this true?

In the East,the doctrine was expressed in the creed of the Council of Seleucia,410:

"…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son." (Lamy, "Concilium Seleucia", Louvain, 1868).

[SolEX01]

^ In what context did you find the above statement?

[ignatius]

^ In what context did you find the above statement?

In a discussion concerning the Filioque's legitimacy.

[SolEX01]

In a discussion concerning the Filioque's legitimacy.

OK, how about a paragraph or 2 or 3 from the source which contains the supposed "Filoque" clause so that people can see the text before and after that clause.  After all, anyone can find one line in the religious texts posted on the Internet.

[ignatius]

In a discussion concerning the Filioque's legitimacy.

OK, how about a paragraph or 2 or 3 from the source which contains the supposed "Filoque" clause so that people can see the text before and after that clause.  After all, anyone can find one line in the religious texts posted on the Internet.

I don't have this document or book so I can't offer anymore than what the poster offered but with all the fuss about the Filioque I honestly doubt this is in support of it from the East.

Actually I did find a reference to it... http://books.google.com/books?id=PHmvLH3sL8gC&pg=PA432&lpg=PA432&dq=Lamy,+%22Concilium+Seleucia%22,+Louvain,+1868&source=web&ots=gCS98AbXvR&sig=PNRde9eVP8Vpm4-QeToT5bfitOo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

[FrChris]

The only Council of Seleucia that I know of was held in 359, of which this source provides an abstract:

Chapter XXII.—Of the Council held at Seleucia in Isauria.

After a time, at the suggestion of the accusers of Eudoxius, Constantius ordered the synod to be held at Seleucia. This town of Isauria lies on the seashore and is the chief town of the district. Hither the bishops of the East, and with them those of Pontus in Asia, were ordered to assemble.

This council dealt with Arianism and Semiarianism, but not Sabellianism.

Maybe there was a Council at Seleucia in 410, but my research has not uncovered it. Please forward here any references mentioned in the other debate!

[orthodoxlurker]

Is this true?

In the East,the doctrine was expressed in the creed of the Council of Seleucia,410:

"…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son." (Lamy, "Concilium Seleucia", Louvain, 1868).

No, it isn't true. The translation is false.

First, as a side note, "Council of Seleucia" in 410 was a council of Assyrian Church, which was about to left communion as from Ephesus 431. So we can rightfully doubt it was ever a recognized local council.

Second, but more important, is that the original wording of it (in, I believe, Partian language) doesn't refer to "procession" in the meaning of eternal procession or "ekporeusis" (sp?) within Holy Trinity, than to temporal, economic procession, to sending of Holy Spirit in time to us. So it wouldn't be "filioque", than "per fillium".

I avail this opportunity to again thank to Apotheoun, whom explained the issue in depth both at catholic forums before we were purged from there, on his site and here. I think the above explanation should be attributed to him (though I might read something similar from other sources, too).

[orthodoxlurker]

Since it is prohibited to post links to another fora here, I suggest you conduct google search after "filioque seleucia", whre the first result will be a catholic forum (hint: many of us were expelled from there in what's known as pogrom of orthodox at catholic forum, described here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13287.0.html) and there is a post there

#387
Old  Aug 27, '08, 4:15 pm
ronyodish

There is an Aramaic word for "proceeds" which shows up in the Aramaic Peshitta Bible in John 15:26:
ܢܦܩ "npq", which is pronounced by Chaldeans as: "napeq"

The above word does not show up in the Aramaic Creed of 410. Rather, the Creed simply has this: "dmin", that is: "who(is) from".

See also: http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/paper17b (Apotheoun's site on filioque - BTW he is an Eastern Catholic)
and http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html
and excellent orthodox resource.

Hope this helps.

[ignatius]

The Church Fathers did not make a distinction between the way the Spirit is manifested on earth from its eternal origin. That distinction was only made after the Schism.

Is there any evidence to deny this?

[ialmisry]

The Church Fathers did not make a distinction between the way the Spirit is manifested on earth from its eternal origin. That distinction was only made after the Schism.

Is there any evidence to deny this?

Where could we start?

[ialmisry]

The only Council of Seleucia that I know of was held in 359, of which this source provides an abstract:

Chapter XXII.—Of the Council held at Seleucia in Isauria.

After a time, at the suggestion of the accusers of Eudoxius, Constantius ordered the synod to be held at Seleucia. This town of Isauria lies on the seashore and is the chief town of the district. Hither the bishops of the East, and with them those of Pontus in Asia, were ordered to assemble.

This council dealt with Arianism and Semiarianism, but not Sabellianism.

Maybe there was a Council at Seleucia in 410, but my research has not uncovered it. Please forward here any references mentioned in the other debate!

courtesy of Ronyodish (gyanukh basimta ):
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=TK0AAAAAMAAJ&dq=Three+Letters+of+Philoxenus&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=CtR0Jjbg9R&sig=JXCvKngwWpNpu6flFpf9udOTb24&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA76,M1
The problem is that there is no verb in the sentence (the actual source of the problem with filioque), and "men" means both "from" and "through" so "proceeds from the Father through the Son," would be phrased naturally the same.  Analytic constructions would have to be had.

[orthodoxlurker]

The Church Fathers did not make a distinction between the way the Spirit is manifested on earth from its eternal origin. That distinction was only made after the Schism.

Is there any evidence to deny this?

There is plenty of evidence to deny it.

First, it is Christ's promise in New Testament that he sents Paracletos. And He is not Son only, He is man too, GodMan. And it was done in time, when He was on Earth.

Second, there is no mention in the Bible about eternal procession between Son and Holy Spirit, the procession that existed before God created time. God hasn't revealed to us that Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Son too.

Third, Holy Fathers needed to address various errors caused by application of phylosophical systems (a.k.a. "human wisdom") to Christ's message, but the error of double procession simply hasn't been present. The only one who expressed it, puzzled by neoplatonic system of Plotin was blessed Augustine, a bishop of Hippo. But his writings were in Latin, he had poor command of Greek, his teaching was unknown outside his diocese, and he asked many times in his writings to be corrected for any error he expressed, since he knew he wasn't infallable.

Finally, explicit distinction between eternal and temporal procession could be found in "Exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by St. John of Damascus, and that was before schism. What is important about him is that he hasn't introduced any novelty in his remarkable work - there was nothing there which is his own, he only expressed what's been believed "by all, everywhere and always". I can't look for link now, do your own research to find appropriate link, it's expressed by gathering his quotations from two or three chapters in "Exact exposition...".

[Αριστοκλής]

"Exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by St. John of Damascus:

http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/

[orthodoxlurker]

This statement

The Father and Son spirate the Spirit. They are one in being, so it is spiration from one principle.

implies that, following that reasoning, Holy Spirit would have to "Sonate" Son, along with Father, while Holy Spirit and Son would have to "Fatherate" Father. That all following the reasoning "They are one in being."

BTW, it is said Holy Trinity is three in hypostases and one in nature. The term "being" isn't necessarily what was meant, particularly having in mind none of them knew English (well, except St. Patrick and Pelagius).

[orthodoxlurker]

And, of course, those who debate with anthony020702, should request link to the texts he quote, for he is known to falsify quotes.

[PeterTheAleut]

And, of course, those who debate with anthony020702, should request link to the texts he quote, for he is known to falsify quotes.

Who's anthony020702?

[ignatius]

And, of course, those who debate with anthony020702, should request link to the texts he quote, for he is known to falsify quotes.

Who's anthony020702?

The gentleman in question is a Roman Catholic Apologists on Catholic-Answers Forum who is currently debating a few posters who are happen to also be members 'here'. 

[orthodoxlurker]

And, of course, those who debate with anthony020702, should request link to the texts he quote, for he is known to falsify quotes.

Who's anthony020702?

The gentleman in question is a Roman Catholic Apologists on Catholic-Answers Forum who is currently debating a few posters who are happen to also be members 'here'. 

roafl. I haven't had impression about him being an apologist!

[ialmisry]

And, of course, those who debate with anthony020702, should request link to the texts he quote, for he is known to falsify quotes.

Who's anthony020702?

The gentleman in question is a Roman Catholic Apologists on Catholic-Answers Forum who is currently debating a few posters who are happen to also be members 'here'. 

roafl. I haven't had impression about him being an apologist!

Cutter and paster draftsman?

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Let us all try to stay on topic here and not start a discussion about the posting habits of some user on another forum.

Thank you.

-- Friul

[Zarabas]

Is this true?

In the East,the doctrine was expressed in the creed of the Council of Seleucia,410:

"…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son." (Lamy, "Concilium Seleucia", Louvain, 1868).

No, it isn't true. The translation is false.

First, as a side note, "Council of Seleucia" in 410 was a council of Assyrian Church, which was about to left communion as from Ephesus 431. So we can rightfully doubt it was ever a recognized local council.

Second, but more important, is that the original wording of it (in, I believe, Partian language) doesn't refer to "procession" in the meaning of eternal procession or "ekporeusis" (sp?) within Holy Trinity, than to temporal, economic procession, to sending of Holy Spirit in time to us. So it wouldn't be "filioque", than "per fillium".

I avail this opportunity to again thank to Apotheoun, whom explained the issue in depth both at catholic forums before we were purged from there, on his site and here. I think the above explanation should be attributed to him (though I might read something similar from other sources, too).

I agree since there is other areas whereby the Roman Catholics have presented forgeries to confirm their heresie.

[anthony022071]

Second, but more important, is that the original wording of it (in, I believe, Partian language) doesn't refer to "procession" in the meaning of eternal procession or "ekporeusis" (sp?) within Holy Trinity, than to temporal, economic procession, to sending of Holy Spirit in time to us. So it wouldn't be "filioque", than "per fillium".

The Church Fathers never distinguished between the way the Spirit is manifested in time from the way it is manifested in eternity. That distinction was made only after the Schism. The manifestation of the Spirit in heaven is the same as it is on earth - through the Son.

St. Cyril of Alexandria says that the Spirit that Jesus manifested was not foreign to him,but was his own.

St. Cyril of Alexandria:
"We must not say that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, in such a way as to suggest that through the Spirit He made use of a power foreign to Himself, and from the Spirit received the ability to work against unclean spirits, and to perform Divine signs among men; but must rather say that the Spirit, through Whom He did indeed work His Divine signs, is His own. [The Twelve Errors, Error 9, 430 A.D.]

"For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of Him by Himself, as He is the Spirit and not the Son; but He is not unconnected with Him [the Son]; for He is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth, and He is sent by Him just as He is from God the Father.  …Since, therefore, He is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father, that is, of the Son, He is evidently Wisdom and Power. (Epist., xvii, Ad Nestorium, De excommunicatione in P.G., LXXVII, 117)

Before the Council of Seleucia, St. Epiphanius said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son:
"No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds (proienai) and of Whom He receives." (Panarion,xi)

The word proienai is equivalent in meaning to the word procedit. It's meaning is not limited to temporal manifestation. 

[Apotheoun]

Energetic Procession (an Orthodox blog run by Perry Robinson and Photios Jones) is a good source of information on the "filioque."  

Below is a link to an article entitled "St. Maximos the Confessor and the Filioque Doctrine" that touches on the distinction between the Spirit's eternal origination (ekporeusis) as person, which is from the Father alone, and the manifestation (phanerosis) or progression (proienai) of the Spirit's energies, which is from the Father through the Son.
  
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2006/12/03/st-maximus-the-conffesor-and-the-filioque-doctrine-part-i/

[anthony022071]

There is plenty of evidence to deny it.

First, it is Christ's promise in New Testament that he sents Paracletos. And He is not Son only, He is man too, GodMan. And it was done in time, when He was on Earth.

The Paraclete is the "Spirit of the Son" as well as the "Spirit of the Father". Christ is the Son in eternity as well as on earth,and he has the Spirit from eternity.

Second, there is no mention in the Bible about eternal procession between Son and Holy Spirit, the procession that existed before God created time. God hasn't revealed to us that Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Son too.

There is mention of the procession of the Spirit from the Son in the writings of the Church Fathers. Catholics and Orthodox don't go on sola scriptura.

This passage shows that Christ had the Spirit from eternity.

"The prophets investigated the times and the circumstances which the Spirit of Christ within them was pointing to, for he predicted the sufferings destined for Christ and the glories that would follow." (1 Peter 1:11)

Third, Holy Fathers needed to address various errors caused by application of phylosophical systems (a.k.a. "human wisdom") to Christ's message, but the error of double procession simply hasn't been present.

It isn't a matter of double procession,unless the Father and Son are considered as if they were separated. The Father and Son are one in being,breathing the same Spirit which unites them in love.

The only one who expressed it, puzzled by neoplatonic system of Plotin was blessed Augustine, a bishop of Hippo. But his writings were in Latin, he had poor command of Greek, his teaching was unknown outside his diocese, and he asked many times in his writings to be corrected for any error he expressed, since he knew he wasn't infallable.

Augustine didn't get the filioque doctrine from Plotinus. It had already been  expressed by Epiphanius,Hilary and Ambrose.

Finally, explicit distinction between eternal and temporal procession could be found in "Exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by St. John of Damascus, and that was before schism. What is important about him is that he hasn't introduced any novelty in his remarkable work - there was nothing there which is his own, he only expressed what's been believed "by all, everywhere and always". I can't look for link now, do your own research to find appropriate link, it's expressed by gathering his quotations from two or three chapters in "Exact exposition...".

"Through the Word, the Father produces the Spirit, who manifests him (dia logou proboleus ekphantorikou Pneumatos)…The Holy Spirit is the power of the Father making secrets of the deity known and proceeding from the Father through the Son in a way that he knows, but which is not begetting…The Father is source of the Son and the Holy Spirit....The Spirit is not the Son of the Father, he is the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from him (ekporeuomenon),…but he is also Spirit of the Son, not as (proceeding) from him, but proceeding through him from the Father. Only the Father is cause (aitios)." (John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, I:12) 

"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." (John of Damascus, Against the Manicheans)

[anthony022071]

"Our Lord teaches that the being of the Spirit is derived not from the Spirit Himself, but from the Father and the Son; He goes forth from the Son, proceeding from the Truth; He has no subsistence but that which is given Him by the Son." Didymus the Blind of Alexandria, The Holy Spirit, 37 (ante A.D. 381).

[Αριστοκλής]

Post #23 is a real stretch, but then we're used to that with this topic.

Post #24 - if that's Orthodox and held throughout the Church (at any time), I'm visiting the nearest Baptist church.

[Apotheoun]

The word proienai is equivalent in meaning to the word procedit. It's meaning is not limited to temporal manifestation.

Sadly the Latins, by mistranslating the Greek words ekporeusis and proienai with a single Latin word procedere, have caused a false equivalence between two distinct theological realities.  As a consequence, they have confused the Spirit's eternal existential procession (ekporeusis) of origin as person (hypostasis), which is only from the Father, since the Father alone is cause (aitia) within the Godhead; with the Spirit's eternal progression (proienai) or manifestation (phanerosis) as energy (energeia), but not as person (hypostasis), which is from the Father through the Son. 

Ultimately, no matter what the Latins presently believe: the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father and His proienai from the Father through the Son are not the same thing.

[anthony022071]

Sadly the Latins, by mistranslating the Greek words ekporeusis and proienai with a single Latin word procedere, have caused a false equivalence between two distinct theological realities.  As a consequence, they have confused the Spirit's eternal existential procession (ekporeusis) of origin as person (hypostasis), which is only from the Father, since the Father alone is cause (aitia) within the Godhead; with the Spirit's eternal progression (proienai) or manifestation (phanerosis) as energy (energeia), but not as person (hypostasis), which is from the Father through the Son. 

The Spirit's existential procession as person is not only from the Father,because the Son is one with the Father,has what he has and does what he does. If the Spirit's eternal procession is separate from the Son,then there would be division within the Trinity. But the Spirit is always with the Son,so there is no reason to think that his existential procession is separated from the Son.
The Spirit is manifested on earth in person,not merely as energy. God is not de-personalized.

St Cyril of Alexandria:
"For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of Him by Himself, as He is the Spirit and not the Son; but He is not unconnected with Him [the Son]; for He is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth, and He is sent by Him just as He is from God the Father.  …Since, therefore, He is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father, that is, of the Son, He is evidently Wisdom and Power. (Epist., xvii, Ad Nestorium, De excommunicatione in P.G., LXXVII, 117)

St Epiphanius:
"The Spirit is always with the Father and the Son, ... proceeding from the Father and receiving of the Son, not foreign to the Father and the Son, but of the same substance, of the same Godhead, of the Father and the Son, He is with the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit ever subsisting, Spirit Divine, Spirit of glory, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Father. ... He is Third in appellation, equal in Divinity, not different as compared to Father and Son, connecting Bond of the Trinity, Ratifying Seal of the Creed. (Panarion)

Ultimately, no matter what the Latins presently believe: the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father and His proienai from the Father through the Son are not the same thing.

Catholic theology doesn't hold that ekporeusis and proienai are the same thing.
But neither is it true that proienai is limited to temporal manifestation.

[ialmisry]

"Our Lord teaches that the being of the Spirit is derived not from the Spirit Himself, but from the Father and the Son; He goes forth from the Son, proceeding from the Truth; He has no subsistence but that which is given Him by the Son." Didymus the Blind of Alexandria, The Holy Spirit, 37 (ante A.D. 381).

Any links to the WHOLE work?

[ialmisry]

Sadly the Latins, by mistranslating the Greek words ekporeusis and proienai with a single Latin word procedere, have caused a false equivalence between two distinct theological realities.  As a consequence, they have confused the Spirit's eternal existential procession (ekporeusis) of origin as person (hypostasis), which is only from the Father, since the Father alone is cause (aitia) within the Godhead; with the Spirit's eternal progression (proienai) or manifestation (phanerosis) as energy (energeia), but not as person (hypostasis), which is from the Father through the Son. 

The Spirit's existential procession as person is not only from the Father,because the Son is one with the Father,has what he has and does what he does. If the Spirit's eternal procession is separate from the Son,then there would be division within the Trinity. But the Spirit is always with the Son,so there is no reason to think that his existential procession is separated from the Son.
The Spirit is manifested on earth in person,not merely as energy. God is not de-personalized.

So the Father and Son are one Person.

St Cyril of Alexandria:
"For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of Him by Himself, as He is the Spirit and not the Son; but He is not unconnected with Him [the Son]; for He is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth, and He is sent by Him just as He is from God the Father.  …Since, therefore, He is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father, that is, of the Son, He is evidently Wisdom and Power. (Epist., xvii, Ad Nestorium, De excommunicatione in P.G., LXXVII, 117)

St Epiphanius:
"The Spirit is always with the Father and the Son, ... proceeding from the Father and receiving of the Son, not foreign to the Father and the Son, but of the same substance, of the same Godhead, of the Father and the Son, He is with the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit ever subsisting, Spirit Divine, Spirit of glory, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Father. ... He is Third in appellation, equal in Divinity, not different as compared to Father and Son, connecting Bond of the Trinity, Ratifying Seal of the Creed. (Panarion)

Ultimately, no matter what the Latins presently believe: the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father and His proienai from the Father through the Son are not the same thing.

Catholic theology doesn't hold that ekporeusis and proienai are the same thing.
But neither is it true that proienai is limited to temporal manifestation.

Then what is it expanded to?

[ialmisry]

There is plenty of evidence to deny it.

First, it is Christ's promise in New Testament that he sents Paracletos. And He is not Son only, He is man too, GodMan. And it was done in time, when He was on Earth.

The Paraclete is the "Spirit of the Son" as well as the "Spirit of the Father". Christ is the Son in eternity as well as on earth,and he has the Spirit from eternity.

Second, there is no mention in the Bible about eternal procession between Son and Holy Spirit, the procession that existed before God created time. God hasn't revealed to us that Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Son too.

There is mention of the procession of the Spirit from the Son in the writings of the Church Fathers. Catholics and Orthodox don't go on sola scriptura.

This passage shows that Christ had the Spirit from eternity.

"The prophets investigated the times and the circumstances which the Spirit of Christ within them was pointing to, for he predicted the sufferings destined for Christ and the glories that would follow." (1 Peter 1:11)

Third, Holy Fathers needed to address various errors caused by application of phylosophical systems (a.k.a. "human wisdom") to Christ's message, but the error of double procession simply hasn't been present.

It isn't a matter of double procession,unless the Father and Son are considered as if they were separated. The Father and Son are one in being,breathing the same Spirit which unites them in love.

The only one who expressed it, puzzled by neoplatonic system of Plotin was blessed Augustine, a bishop of Hippo. But his writings were in Latin, he had poor command of Greek, his teaching was unknown outside his diocese, and he asked many times in his writings to be corrected for any error he expressed, since he knew he wasn't infallable.

Augustine didn't get the filioque doctrine from Plotinus. It had already been  expressed by Epiphanius,Hilary and Ambrose.

Finally, explicit distinction between eternal and temporal procession could be found in "Exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by St. John of Damascus, and that was before schism. What is important about him is that he hasn't introduced any novelty in his remarkable work - there was nothing there which is his own, he only expressed what's been believed "by all, everywhere and always". I can't look for link now, do your own research to find appropriate link, it's expressed by gathering his quotations from two or three chapters in "Exact exposition...".

"Through the Word, the Father produces the Spirit, who manifests him (dia logou proboleus ekphantorikou Pneumatos)…The Holy Spirit is the power of the Father making secrets of the deity known and proceeding from the Father through the Son in a way that he knows, but which is not begetting…The Father is source of the Son and the Holy Spirit....The Spirit is not the Son of the Father, he is the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from him (ekporeuomenon),…but he is also Spirit of the Son, not as (proceeding) from him, but proceeding through him from the Father. Only the Father is cause (aitios)." (John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, I:12) 

"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." (John of Damascus, Against the Manicheans)

I can't remember if it was here or on another forum ( ) where I went through the trouble ( ) of providing the full quotes to these snipets, showing how ORTHODOX these Fathers are.

[Apotheoun]

The Spirit's existential procession as person is not only from the Father, because the Son is one with the Father, has what he has and does what he does.

Sadly you are confusing person and nature.  The Father and the Son are one in nature, but the Holy Spirit is also one in nature with them; and so, if I accepted your position, it follows that the Spirit would be the cause (aitia) of His own hypostasis, which is utter nonsense.  To put it another way, the theological position that you are advocating ultimately leads either to Sabellian Modalism, because it involves confounding the hypostatic uniqueness of the Father and the Son by making them into one and the same person / principle (arche), or it leads to subordinationism and ditheism, because it makes the Holy Spirit essentially less than the Father and the Son since He alone (i.e., the Holy Spirit) cannot spirate a divine person, which involves at the same time a denial of His being co-essential with the Father and the Son.  Now, these theological difficulties are quite simply a form of the Pneumatomachian heresy.

If the Spirit's eternal procession is separate from the Son,then there would be division within the Trinity. But the Spirit is always with the Son,so there is no reason to think that his existential procession is separated from the Son.

You are confusing the fact that there is a real distinction between hypostatic origination and energetic manifestation with the idea that there are separations within the Godhead.  But a real distinction (i.e., a pragmatika diakrisis) does not involve a separation (i.e., a pragmatike diaresis), and that you are unaware of this fact is disturbing to say the least.

Spirit is manifested on earth in person, not merely as energy. God is not de-personalized.

Energy is "personal" (i.e., it is enhypostatic), but it is not a person (hypostasis).  The primary error of Latin theology is its failure to distinguish between the Spirit as person and the Spirit as gift (energy).  That said, no man can receive the hypostasis of the Spirit because that would involve a hypostatic union between each individual Christian and the Holy Spirit, but there is only one hypostatic union and that occurred in the incarnation of the eternal Logos.

Catholic theology doesn't hold that ekporeusis and proienai are the same thing.
But neither is it true that proienai is limited to temporal manifestation.

Where in my post did I say that proienai is limited to temporal manifestation?

I said that the Spirit's movement from the Father through the Son concerns ". . . [His] eternal progression (proienai) or manifestation (phanerosis) as energy (energeia)."

[Apotheoun]

Eastern Triadology, unlike the Scholastic philosophical theology of the West, is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle (arche), source (pege), and cause (aitia) of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their subsistence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are — as a consequence — homoousios with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word homoousios itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the use of the term homoousios by the Church Fathers involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person (hypostasis) from God the Father alone by generation (gennatos), and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father’s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit, because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father’s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which — as I already indicated — is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, “Logos Apodeiktikos” I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal subsistence and their co-essential nature.

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis) proceeds from Father and the Son “as from one principle,” thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son, by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.

[anthony022071]

So the Father and Son are one Person.

For being one in being?

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30)

The Orthodox often sound like they doubt the consubsantiality doctrine when they argue against the filioque doctrine.

Then what is it expanded to?

It depends on the context. Proienai just means proceeds. The Church Fathers used it when talking about the internal life of the Trinity.

[anthony022071]

Sadly you are confusing person and nature.  The Father and the Son are one in nature, but the Holy Spirit is also one in nature with them;

I'm not confusing person and nature. The Father and Son are not only one in nature but one in being,and God as Being is a matter of person. The persons of the Trinity are one Being that we call "He".

and so, if I accepted your position, it follows that the Spirit would be the cause (aitia) of His own hypostasis, which is utter nonsense.

No,that doesn't follow from my position. The Spirit is caused by the Father and Son,so he is not the cause of his own person.

To put it another way, the theological position that you are advocating ultimately leads either to Sabellian Modalism, because it involves confounding the hypostatic uniqueness of the Father and the Son by making them into one and the same person / principle (arche),

No,it doesn't confound the uniqueness of the Father and Son,because they are still who they are. One is defined by Fatherhood and the other is defined by Sonship. The persons of the Trinity are collectively one principle,which is why Christian philosophers can call God the first principle.

or it leads to subordinationism and ditheism, because it makes the Holy Spirit essentially less than the Father and the Son since He alone (i.e., the Holy Spirit) cannot spirate a divine person, which involves at the same time a denial of His being co-essential with the Father and the Son.  Now, these theological difficulties are quite simply a form of the Pneumatomachian heresy.

How does being breathed by the Father and Son as their own Spirit make the Spirit essentially less than they are? On the contrary,it makes the Spirit essentially what they are. But if you believe that the Father alone is cause of the Spirit,then you may as well deny that the Spirit is of the Son,and that the Son eternally has the Spirit of Sonship.

Is St. Basil a heretical subordinationalist when he says that the Spirit is third in dignity?

You are confusing the fact that there is a real distinction between hypostatic origination and energetic manifestation with the idea that there are separations within the Godhead.  But a real distinction (i.e., a pragmatika diakrisis) does not involve a separation (i.e., a pragmatike diaresis), and that you are unaware of this fact is disturbing to say the least.

If the Son were not connected as person with the eternal origination of the Spirit,then they would be separated in eternity from each other,and there would be three gods with one nature.

Energetic manifestation is not a fact.

Energy is "personal" (i.e., it is enhypostatic), but it is not a person (hypostasis). 

What is personal about God can't be distinguished from the persons of God without making a separation in God. Where the power and attributes of God are,God is there is person.

The primary error of Latin theology is its failure to distinguish between the Spirit as person and the Spirit as gift (energy).

The error of Greek theology is assuming there is such a distinction. The Spirit is always a person. If he were not,then he would not be a He,or God. There is no reason to think that the Spirit is shorn of personhood when he is sent as a gift to men. A person who is an eternal spirit can go anywhere.

That said, no man can receive the hypostasis of the Spirit because that would involve a hypostatic union between each individual Christian and the Holy Spirit, but there is only one hypostatic union and that occurred in the incarnation of the eternal Logos.

Christ was conceived with the hypostatic union. It was who he was intrinsically. Christians are united with God from without. We are not like that intrinsically.  Christ told his apostles that the Spirit (he) would be in them,and he himself would remain in them.

John 14:17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:22 Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world?

John 14:23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.

Where in my post did I say that proienai is limited to temporal manifestation?

I said that the Spirit's movement from the Father through the Son concerns ". . . [His] eternal progression (proienai) or manifestation (phanerosis) as energy (energeia)."

That would mean that there is division within the Trinity,since the Spirit's energies are separated from his person in the procession,and persons are not being communicated with each other.

[ozgeorge]

Sadly you are confusing person and nature.  The Father and the Son are one in nature, but the Holy Spirit is also one in nature with them;

I'm not confusing person and nature. The Father and Son are not only one in nature but one in being,and God as Being is a matter of person. The persons of the Trinity are one Being that we call "He".

Actually, in terms of Orthodox Theology, you are confusing the terms.
"Being" is the English translation of the original Greek word "Ousia" in the Creed, which means "Essence/being/substance", while "Person" is the English translation of the Greek word "hypostasis" meaning, literally "under (hypo) -standing (stasis)" or "expression". God is one Being/Essence (Ousia) in Three distinct Persons (hypostases).  According to Orthodox theology, the Three Persons are distinct "without confusion", yet con-substantial (sharing the same Substance/Ousia/Essence). And I believe this is the same in Roman Catholic theology.

[anthony022071]

Actually, in terms of Orthodox Theology, you are confusing the terms.
"Being" is the English translation of the original Greek word "Ousia" in the Creed, which means "Essence/being/substance", while "Person" is the English translation of the Greek word "hypostasis" meaning, literally "under (hypo) -standing (stasis)" or "expression". God is one Being/Essence (Ousia) in Three distinct Persons (hypostases).  According to Orthodox theology, the Three Persons are distinct "without confusion", yet con-substantial (sharing the same Substance/Ousia/Essence). And I believe this is the same in Roman Catholic theology.

So where is the confusion of nature and person? Catholics agree that God is three distinct persons who are consubstantial,but it is also undeniable that the "Being" of scripture ("Being" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "I Am") is a He,as in a person who can be addressed,rather than just an unknowable essence. God's essence can't be distinguished apart from the persons of God. Persons are essence.

The English word person actually comes from the Latin word persona. Tertullian wrote about the persons of God before the Greek-speaking theologians did.

[Tzimis]

The English word person actually comes from the Latin word persona. Tertullian wrote about the persons of God before the Greek-speaking theologians did.

Not true. Actually it was the Cappadocian Fathers that made first note about the persona of the trinity. What you are describing is Sabellianism. During the 4th century.  The Westerners were always willing to embrace any form of Sabellianism, while the Easterners insisted that we must definitely keep these three Personae separate. In the 2nd century with the Apologetes, the issue was set out clearly, as follows: The three Personae of the Holy Trinity are “Three in Number”, in the sense of a numeric three; we do not refer to a One, to a unit, which either broadens – as Savellius claimed – and becomes (or takes on) three forms, or which takes in any other external element within the One God; this number of three is located within the very meaning of God. In other words, God never existed alone.

[ignatius]

When Anthony speaks of 'being' is he conflating 'person' into it? He seems to be saying that there is a relationship 'in being' between the Father and the Son which the Holy Spirit does not share? What does that mean?

Anyone that can help is most appreciated.

[ozgeorge]

So where is the confusion of nature and person? 

Because nature is "ousia". So when you say:

God as Being is a matter of person.

you make the error of confusing ousia with Personhood, an error which you repeat when you say:

Persons are essence.

What you should say is "Persons have essence", or "Essence can exist only in a Person". But you cannot say that Person and Essence are the same thing.

("Being" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "I Am")

No it isn't. "Being" is "ousia" in Greek. the Septuagint has has God calling Himself "O OON" ("The One Who Is") in Greek in Exodus.. "I AM" is "Ego Eimi" in Greek (spoken by Christ in John 8:58 ).

is a He,as in a person who can be addressed,rather than just an unknowable essence..... God's essence can't be distinguished apart from the persons of God.

Again, this goes back to the fact that God is Three Persons in One Essence/Being/Nature. The Divine Essence/Nature exists within the Three Persons, not separated from them. The same goes for you. You have a human Nature (we call it "humanity") which exists in your person, but "human nature" cannot exist outside of a human person. Yet they are not the same thing. You cannot say that your person is "humanity", you can only say that it has humanity,

[ignatius]

ozgeorge,

Isn't this conflation of the 'being' of the Father and the Son ultimately falling inline with Neo-platonist ideas of the One (i.e. Father) emanating the Mind (i.e. Thought or Logos) which then emanates the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit)? Wasn't this Blessed Augustine's influence? I mean isn't the Mind thought of as a Mirror of the One and the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) as a 'lesser' emanation? This seems to be what I am seeing with Anthony... ?

[Apotheoun]

In Trinitarian theology to say that person and essence are the same thing ultimately involves falling into either Sabellian Modalism (i.e., if one emphasizes the unity of essence at the expense of the reality of the persons) or Tritheism (i.e., if one emphasizes the distinction of persons at the expense of the unity of essence).

[ozgeorge]

ozgeorge,

Isn't this conflation of the 'being' of the Father and the Son ultimately falling inline with Neo-platonist ideas of the One (i.e. Father) emanating the Mind (i.e. Thought or Logos) which then emanates the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit)? Wasn't this Blessed Augustine's influence? I mean isn't the Mind thought of as a Mirror of the One and the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) as a 'lesser' emanation? This seems to be what I am seeing with Anthony... ?

I'm not sure that Anthony's error is that complicated. I think it's simply a confusion of terms.
I think the only thing he needs to do is to see the distinction between the terms by grouping them together differently to how he has been.
In other words he needs to group the terms thus:


Group 1.
"Being"/"Nature"/"Essence"/"Ousia"

Group 2.
"Person"/"Hypostasis"/"Persona"

Perhaps what would work best for Anthony to make this distinction (given his Latin background) would be if he reflected on the etymology of the word "Persona". A "persona" was a mask worn by an actor, in other words, a persona is not the actor's "being", but a "person" ("character") in which the actor's being operated.

[ozgeorge]

In Trinitarian theology to say that person and essence are the same thing ultimately involves falling into either Sabellian Modalism (i.e., if one emphasizes the unity of essence at the expense of the reality of the persons) or Tritheism (i.e., if one emphasizes the distinction of persons at the expense of the unity of essence).

Very true, but as I said to lubeltri above, I really think this is a misunderstanding of terms in this case. But we can also see from this that if we don't fix small errors, they invariably lead to larger errors.

[Apotheoun]

Very true, but as I said to lubeltri above, I really think this is a misunderstanding of terms in this case. But we can also see from this that if we don't fix small errors, they invariably lead to larger errors.

I agree.

The English word person actually comes from the Latin word persona. Tertullian wrote about the persons of God before the Greek-speaking theologians did.

One other thing needs to be clarified:  the Greek word prosopon, which is in some sense equivalent to the Latin word persona, was used centuries before Tertullian was even a twinkle in his mother's eyes.

In fact, prosopon is a biblical word used in both the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament.