Author Topic: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.  (Read 2371 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,041
  • Saint Patrick, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #45 on: December 23, 2017, 03:12:27 PM »
And I'm curious - what is the Orthodox position on the Son providing a more significant role than merely being an energetic procession? Is such an idea rejected?
"I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation."

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 738
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #46 on: December 23, 2017, 03:35:09 PM »
As a neophyte, especially when it comes to this issue (I decided on Orthodoxy over the issue of Papal Primacy), how exactly is the tap of water analogous to being a mediate cause rather than a conduit? After all, both the "conduit" and the "tap of water" are the same flow of water that have an origin with the reservoir, correct? How does the tap of water serve as a cause of the flow of water, and how is this analogous to the Son being a cause of the Holy Spirit? I mean, I guess you can turn the tap on and off in terms of the flow - but is that valid for the Son?
Think of it this way: the person of the Holy Spirit originates eternally from God the father, and is send to us by The Son of God, this sending is not the eternal hypostatic beginning(origin) of the Holy Spirit, but His temporal mission.

« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 03:36:13 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,107
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #47 on: December 23, 2017, 07:36:05 PM »
And I'm curious - what is the Orthodox position on the Son providing a more significant role than merely being an energetic procession? Is such an idea rejected?

I believe it is rejected. You might need to read the works of Gregory II of Cyprus or St. Gregory Palamas to know for sure. Gregory II was the first to address such an issue directly, but unfortunately I don't know of any translations of his works. You might have better luck finding a translation of St. Gregory's works on the matter.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 07:37:36 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,196
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #48 on: December 24, 2017, 07:28:34 AM »
Never mind.

This just confirms that the Holy Spirit obtains his being from the Son and is not a mere conduit in the procession of the Holy Spirit. He is a principle singularly also as a reservoir is a principle of water though a tap is a principle too, just that one is immediate and the other mediate. Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father and mediately from the Son.

As a neophyte, especially when it comes to this issue (I decided on Orthodoxy over the issue of Papal Primacy), how exactly is the tap of water analogous to being a mediate cause rather than a conduit? After all, both the "conduit" and the "tap of water" are the same flow of water that have an origin with the reservoir, correct? How does the tap of water serve as a cause of the flow of water, and how is this analogous to the Son being a cause of the Holy Spirit? I mean, I guess you can turn the tap on and off in terms of the flow - but is that valid for the Son?

That analogy of the reservoir and tap was just to demeonstarte the difference between immediate and mediate. Not to touch on the finer details of substantial procession.

You get water ultimately from the reservoir but where you actually also get it is from the tap when you open it. The water is immediately from the reservoir and mediately from the tap.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 07:32:46 AM by Wandile »
I do not post here anymore until the end of the year. God bless.

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #49 on: December 24, 2017, 11:41:03 AM »
Quote from: Vanyho
St Cyril's goal in his 12 anathemas are designed to completely repudiate from all angles the idea that there is one person who is the son of mary and another person who is god

1. Correct. For this is the Nestorian heresy in a nutshell. The heretic held that Christ is not truly God incarnate, but only a kind of temple in whom God dwelt in a special way, so that the Word is one Person, and the Man Jesus another; that His sacred body is not to be adored with the true and proper worship of latria we give to the Holy Trinity, but is only to receive a veneration, apart from a separate adoration we supposedly give to the Word; that consequently Mary is not truly the Mother of God; and that God did not redeem us truly in His own blood, etc, which Scripture explicitly says. Most of these false ideas are also found, with some changes and sophistry, in Theodoret the Nestorian, who was twice condemned and himself refused to condemn Nestorius; even after Rome's supreme and timely intervention saw Nestorius of Constantinople condemned by the whole Church; later at Pope St. Leo's urging Theodoret had to condemned Nestorius. Thus ended the Nestorian heresy, but not all its remnants. (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14574b.htm)

But the part you write after this is incorrect. Miracles are always to be attributed to the whole Trinity; not to one Person to the exclusion of the others. Even in the case of Lazarus, was the Person of the Father excluded? By no means, for Jesus explicitly prays to the Father, and hence you are wrong in trying to place distinction of Person in acts such as miracles, which is always done by the whole Trinity.

2. Distinction of Person in the Consubstantial Essence of the Holy Trinity comes from only one thing - the mutual relations by which the Triune Hypostases of the Godhead are relationally distinct from one another, this is how the Athanasian Creed distinguishes the Persons and so does Pope St. Leo the Great explicitly against the Sabellians - now the Sabellians denied the distinction of relation in the Trinity, thus the below clearly refers to hypostatic procession in the divine Essence. "in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ... as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both." How do you reconcile this with energetic procession only?

St. Thomas Aquinas proved this even more forcefully; "the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations ... Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations." and the Greeks not only at Lyons but even after that were never able to refute this Catholic argument; can you? And that's why many of them acknowledged the eternal hypostatic relationship of the Spirit to the Son upon closer study; all pious and serious study will necessarily lead to the same conclusion. Again, just look at the dogmatic statement of St. Tarasius, the Spirit "Who Proceeds from the Father through the Son is Himself God", the Same Person who Proceeds from the Father is acknowledged to be God in His Procession through the Son; therefore it is the divine hypostasis that Proceeds and not His grace only;  according to you, St. Tarasius is speaking about two completely different things in one and the same context using one and the same word to describe two completely different processions. One, a procession from the Father of the divine Hypostasis; another, a merely energetic procession only of the grace of the Spirit through the Son; which is refuted by the words "And is Himself God" among other things. It is the divine Person Who is God Who Proceeds through the Son, and in this way alone is relationally distinct from Him.

(Nor would anyone use the technical term procession to refer to the Holy Trinity giving grace to us anymore we would say the Father generates the Son when He gives us the grace of His Son e.g. at Baptism. Generation and Procession are used of the eternal relations of the hypostases only. The grace of the Spirit is identical to the Son and not at all distinct from it; there is only one grace of the whole Trinity; hence all descriptions of the Spirit as proper to the Son also necessarily describe properties of hypostases, because grace is not proper to any one, but common to the whole Trinity)

3. But even beside that, and at the same time, Patriarch Bekkus and many others of the Greeks came to the same conclusion from reading the Greek Fathers. After that, they explained some things to us that they understood better, because they were native Greek speakers; e.g. that when the Fathers say the Father is Cause in Greek, they are referring to His unique Hypostatic Property of Producing a Divine Person; thus the Father produces His Son and His Spirit; the Word receives the Spirit from the Father as an eternal gift of His Love.

Thus, among many other examples, the Greek Fathers like St. Maximus say ""By nature (ϕυσει) the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son Who is begotten" while also saying the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit". The Son does not produce the Holy Spirit, He receives Him from the Father as proper to His own Person, in an eternal procession of Love, so He is not called cause in this sense. The other text makes clear that a substantial or hypostatic procession is not excluded by this understanding of cause "the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son"
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 11:45:33 AM by Xavier »
"St. Ephrem clearly affirms that Mary is the most beautiful creature, who brings to the light “the fairest of the sons of men” (Ps 45[44]:2), Jesus Christ. St. Ephrem “You alone and Your Mother are more beautiful than the others, for there is no blemish in You, nor any stains upon Your Mother.” Nisibene Hymns, XXVII, 8 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 219, 76). https://missiomagazine.com/mary-mirror-of-divine-beauty-in-saint-ephrem/

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 738
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #50 on: December 24, 2017, 12:37:12 PM »
@Xavier, you are confused precisely because you want to defend an addition to the faith which in indefensible, it is much easier to revert back to orthodoxy, there is no confusion, no misunderstanding, no apologies, no contradictions... everything is simply correct.

So let me try to demonstrate to you where you err
Quote
But the part you write after this is incorrect. Miracles are always to be attributed to the whole Trinity; not to one Person to the exclusion of the others. Even in the case of Lazarus, was the Person of the Father excluded? By no means, for Jesus explicitly prays to the Father, and hence you are wrong in trying to place distinction of Person in acts such as miracles, which is always done by the whole Trinity.
He didn't pray to the Father to give him the power to raise lazaros from the dead, He prayed to the Father that they might believe. Then He Himself commanded Lazarus to come from the dead. John 11:40-44.

And while we can say that the Holy trinity is undivided, we also understand God as tri-personal, that means some acts are attributed to one person and others to another person, for example: This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him Matthew 17:5, can it be said that this miraculous saying is attributed to the entire Holy Trinity or to God the Father who personally said that ?

Quote
2. Distinction of Person in the Consubstantial Essence of the Holy Trinity comes from only one thing - the mutual relations by which the Triune Hypostases of the Godhead are relationally distinct from one another, this is how the Athanasian Creed distinguishes the Persons and so does Pope St. Leo the Great explicitly against the Sabellians - now the Sabellians denied the distinction of relation in the Trinity, thus the below clearly refers to hypostatic procession in the divine Essence. "in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ... as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both." How do you reconcile this with energetic procession only?
Does your conscience condemn you for holding two contradicting views ?
Quote
St. Thomas Aquinas proved this even more forcefully; "the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations ... Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations." and the Greeks not only at Lyons but even after that were never able to refute this Catholic argument; can you? And that's why many of them acknowledged the eternal hypostatic relationship of the Spirit to the Son upon closer study; all pious and serious study will necessarily lead to the same conclusion. Again, just look at the dogmatic statement of St. Tarasius, the Spirit "Who Proceeds from the Father through the Son is Himself God", the Same Person who Proceeds from the Father is acknowledged to be God in His Procession through the Son; therefore it is the divine hypostasis that Proceeds and not His grace only;  according to you, St. Tarasius is speaking about two completely different things in one and the same context using one and the same word to describe two completely different processions. One, a procession from the Father of the divine Hypostasis; another, a merely energetic procession only of the grace of the Spirit through the Son; which is refuted by the words "And is Himself God" among other things. It is the divine Person Who is God Who Proceeds from the Son, and in this way alone is relationally distinct from Him.
This is a salad of non-sense, Thomas Aquinas was a confused non-orthodox, learning from him you get you confused as well.

Quote
3. But even beside that, and at the same time, Patriarch Bekkus and many others of the Greeks came to the same conclusion from reading the Greek Fathers. After that, they explained some things to us that they understood better, because they were native Greek speakers; e.g. that when the Fathers say the Father is Cause in Greek, they are referring to His unique Hypostatic Property of Producing a Divine Person; thus the Father produces His Son and His Spirit; but in such
Unfortunately there will be always those bishops who sell out under political pressure and for earthly gains. They are here even today: the ecumenists.

Quote
Thus, among many other examples, the Greek Fathers like St. Maximus say ""By nature (ϕυσει) the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son Who is begotten
Whenever i see someone quoting from the Father through the Son from a Church father as proof for the filioque, i outright see this as dishonesty, you are either dishonest with us or with yourself. The latins in their robber synods completely rejected the word "through" and insisted to the word "and", and don't try to explain to me how it means the same, when it is clear that this is not the case.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 12:38:41 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2017, 12:54:23 PM »
Heh. You are so wrong one hardly knows where to start. Let's take this demonstrably false claim "The latins in their robber synods completely rejected the word "through". Refutation of the false statement: "For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words." https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM So that's either a lie or an error. Which is it?
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 12:56:30 PM by Xavier »
"St. Ephrem clearly affirms that Mary is the most beautiful creature, who brings to the light “the fairest of the sons of men” (Ps 45[44]:2), Jesus Christ. St. Ephrem “You alone and Your Mother are more beautiful than the others, for there is no blemish in You, nor any stains upon Your Mother.” Nisibene Hymns, XXVII, 8 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 219, 76). https://missiomagazine.com/mary-mirror-of-divine-beauty-in-saint-ephrem/

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #52 on: January 05, 2018, 10:04:20 PM »
... Let's take this demonstrably false claim "The latins in their robber synods completely rejected the word "through". Refutation of the false statement: "For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words." https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM So that's either a lie or an error. Which is it?

It's both a lie and an error. Surely you can't be so naive as to take a sentence of apologetics from an EWTN resource and expect us to accept it like the Word, can you?

Quote
Heh. You are so wrong one hardly knows where to start.

A mantra for your mirror.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #53 on: January 06, 2018, 05:39:54 AM »
That's not a sentence from a writer on EWTN, that is the explicit text of the Council of Florence. It shows the Council Fathers did not reject "from the Father through the Son" at Florence.

And so the claim in Vanyho's statement that "The latins in their robber synods completely rejected the word "through" is not correct.
"St. Ephrem clearly affirms that Mary is the most beautiful creature, who brings to the light “the fairest of the sons of men” (Ps 45[44]:2), Jesus Christ. St. Ephrem “You alone and Your Mother are more beautiful than the others, for there is no blemish in You, nor any stains upon Your Mother.” Nisibene Hymns, XXVII, 8 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 219, 76). https://missiomagazine.com/mary-mirror-of-divine-beauty-in-saint-ephrem/

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #54 on: January 06, 2018, 02:40:43 PM »
That's not a sentence from a writer on EWTN, that is the explicit text of the Council of Florence. It shows the Council Fathers did not reject "from the Father through the Son" at Florence.

Are you really this obtuse? No, it's not from the Council; it's from an old Roman Catholic apologetic about the Council reproduced in the EWTN archives. However, that's barely the point.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2018, 02:44:34 PM »
And, by the way, your constant sly insistence that the council at Florence was an Orthodox Council is deeply offensive to the Orthodox faith and most of the posters you interact with here.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #56 on: January 06, 2018, 08:26:20 PM »
You will find the same Council text verbatim here or on any other site. It has nothing to do with ewtn.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/florence.htm

Porter, please don't attribute to me what I did not say. I know you disagree with Florence. I was describing that both "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son" are acceptable to Catholics as Catholic Councils explicitly teach.
"St. Ephrem clearly affirms that Mary is the most beautiful creature, who brings to the light “the fairest of the sons of men” (Ps 45[44]:2), Jesus Christ. St. Ephrem “You alone and Your Mother are more beautiful than the others, for there is no blemish in You, nor any stains upon Your Mother.” Nisibene Hymns, XXVII, 8 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 219, 76). https://missiomagazine.com/mary-mirror-of-divine-beauty-in-saint-ephrem/

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #57 on: January 06, 2018, 08:56:11 PM »
You will find the same Council text verbatim here or on any other site. It has nothing to do with ewtn.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/florence.htm

"Text taken from http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM" -- but EWTN isn't the issue. The issue is you're quoting indiscriminately from a compiled resource (which includes a short essay by a Norman P. Tanner), taking no care whether the words you find apply to the concern you are replying to as long as you can find them.

Quote
I was describing that both "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son" are acceptable to Catholics as Catholic Councils explicitly teach.

Is there anyone who doesn't know this? Is this relevant in any way to the argument at hand? Naturally Rome is going to be generous and forgiving with itself and its ancient errors; if anything this confirms the cynicism of that See. If instead you see this as generous to erring sons, then you are naive but also would have a point -- yet that point would remain irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Quote
Porter, please don't attribute to me what I did not say. I know you disagree with Florence.

You are continually applying to Florence, to the coerced responses of Mark of Ephesus, etc., as tho you do us some favor. It is your side that erred against the Church, it is your side that highhandedly persists. If there is generosity and forgiveness to be granted here, it is from our side. If the sly condescension of your posts could in fact be sincere in some way, after all the years you've been presented with simple facts, then God help you.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 08:58:26 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline kabane52

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Patriarch John Bekkus rejected (at Lyons) the Monopatrism of Photius.
« Reply #58 on: January 16, 2018, 05:24:14 AM »
Sure- Bekkos was a unionist.

You’re just spoof-texting, as far as I can tell. The quotations which you’re using seem to be drawn from the standard list of patristic quotations cribbed from Catholic apologetic sites. I’m sorry if I’m wrong here- it’s just my perception.

The best work on the controversy between Bekkos and Gregory of Cyprus is Papadakis’ “Crisis in Byzantium.” In fact, next to Siecenski, it is often said to be the best work on the Filioque controversy in general.

Both “from the Son” and “through the Son” are fine, since, as Athanasius says, the words don’t matter so much as the theological intent does. I can easily interpret both statements in an Orthodox and heterodox manner. If “through the Son” refers to the Spirit’s being the Spirit coming by the participation of the Son in the procession, then it’s heterodox. But if it means that in the singular movement of the Spirit out from the Father (on which account He is the Holy Spirit) He participates in the glory of the Son, thereby manifesting the unity of their activity (and thus essence, which is the ground of activity), then it’s Orthodox.

Florence was dominated on the Latin side by Dominican theologians who wanted to reduce the Greek patristic tradition to Thomism. Fr. Christiaan Kappes, a Latin Catholic priest, suggests that there was an alternative, non-Thomistic interpretation of the Filioque which is more concordant with the Orthodox teaching than the Thomistic understanding. While Thomas was a man of incredible personal sanctity and brilliance, his teaching on the procession is not compatible with what is said by the Greek patristic tradition. As I mentioned on another thread, the easiest way to see this is by comparing how Fathers like Gregory and John Damascene distinguished procession and generation to how St. Thomas did- the former stated it was manner of origin from the Father. The latter said it was the participation of the Son in the procession.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2018, 05:30:19 AM by kabane52 »