Author Topic: Nicene doctrine: Holy Spirit ekporeumeonon "from the Father through the Son"  (Read 3323 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
At any rate, Florence specifically contradicts the Greek Patristic understanding of "through the Son," by asserting that this wording makes the Son cause of the Holy Spirit.

Wow. Wow. And I think we see where Xavier's posts get their bald-faced speciousness from. Long endemic in a certain religion.
"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 LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,533
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
So wait.... is there an eternal or temporal procession only, and why?

Will none of you try to correct someone who is ignorant and is inquiring into Orthodoxy?
« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 09:16:29 PM by LivenotoneviL »
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline Onesimus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
So wait.... is there an eternal or temporal procession only, and why?

Will none of you try to correct someone who is ignorant and is inquiring into Orthodoxy?

I’m not going to try to answer this question directly, because I’d be biting off more than I can chew at the moment, and I’m not part of the convo.

However, last year I wrote a paper in seminary regarding the Scriptural treatment of time.   Readers digest version; There is more than one conception of “time” than even referring to to them flatly as “ eternal”or “temporal.”   And it’s not either / or, its both with respect to all things.    The Greek terms are chronos and kairos.   Chronos is linear time as we know it - or rather, as we perceive it in a fallen state.  Kairos, isn’t really time - but at the same time interpenteates and intersects with chronos by grace.   Kairos is eternity in a sense, because it intersects with all times simultaneously.   Then there are the aeons.   Do a google search on kairos and chronos...

So, I’m not answering your question, but there is a broader conception than the neat categories we tend to stick things into with reference to time.   Procession is eternal as far as I understand...but Eternity is not separate from temporal / they intersect by grace - or perhaps better understood, grace illuminates the intersection and unity of the two which is always present, but which we have become blind to.

Don’t know if that is helpful or not.   
« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 09:46:06 PM by Onesimus »

Offline recent convert

  • Orthodox Chrisitan
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,276
  • St.David of Wales pray for us
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
I will venture to guess that the Son sending the Spirit as in breathing the Spirit to the Apostles is similar to the Spirit ( in a sense) sending the Son n birth from The Theotokos s. The Spirit proceeds from the Father but is sent by grace for our redemption. The Spirit sends the Son by grace in the Incarnation but is eternally begotten of the Father; eternally begotten but sent by grace in a redemptive act for created man.
Antiochian OC NA

Beware the wrath of the guardians of "love."

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
So wait.... is there an eternal or temporal procession only, and why?

Will none of you try to correct someone who is ignorant and is inquiring into Orthodoxy?

Dude, calm down. If you're that desperate for an answer, maybe read some Pomazansky and talk to your priest?

Like I said, I'm not well read enough on the topic to get that deep into it. I'm sure Cavaradossi or Porter or someone will see this eventually.
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,973
So wait.... is there an eternal or temporal procession only, and why?

Will none of you try to correct someone who is ignorant and is inquiring into Orthodoxy?

I hadn't had time to read through this whole thread, so I was unaware that you were seeking clarification. There must be some sort of eternal relation between the Holy Spirit and the Son, that much is true, so when the fathers speak of the Spirit resting upon the Son, or the Spirit proceeding through the Son, these must somehow refer to the same eternal relation between the two. The major objection to the Latin understanding of the filioque from the Orthodox perspective is that it conflates the Father and the Son into essentially a monad which relates to the Holy Spirit.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
As you can see, Mina, the matter is resolved with those who admit (1) the Spirit proceeds eternally (which is what ekporeusis means) from the Father through the Son - it is not resolved for those who claim (2) the Spirit comes through the Son temporally only. The official representatives of your Church (see excerpt from study below) have agreed to (1). Some on this thread are still defending (2).

Vanyho, the Holy Spirit is not coming to you or to us in His eternal spiration. He is the Lord and giver of Life Who proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son. If the world had never been created, He would still proceed by ekporeomenon from the Father through the Son, just like the Son is eternally begotten from the Father.

Hi recent convert, at the Lord's Baptism, as you know, the waters did not make holy the Man, but the Man made holy the waters, that baptism for us may be sanctified. Similarly, He did not then obtain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as if He had it not before, but the heavens were opened to show what would happen to us in Baptism - that is, we receive the Holy Spirit when baptized. Sure, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, He said the Spirit would not come unless He went up to heaven; the question is, does the temporal sending in the divine economy reflect the eternal order in the divine ontology? We Latins say yes and in the Greek Church have said no.

Why is it none of the divine Persons is said to send the Father? Because the Father is the Monarch in the Trinity, even eternally. The Father sends the Son, the Son does not send the Father; the temporal sending is one of the many ways the Holy Trinity manifests or explains to us what was the eternal relations. Why does Jesus say the Holy Spirit will not come to us unless He goes to the Father? To show us, by a kind of analogy, what the eternal relationship was. For a similar reason, He breathed His Spirit on the Apostles.

Mina, to be more clear, if - but that is a big if and is not always true with everybody - it is acknowledged on both sides that the spiration of the Spirit from the Father through the Son is co-eternal with the generation of the Word, as the study below admits, then of course the Faith confessed by each is identical. All who confess what the study below confess what we Catholics believe.

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

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

The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character.

Sure, I don't think there's problem with much of what you write.  I just think you need to consider your audience and what they read and how they read it.

I will take your word for it.  If there are Greek fathers who do use "ekperoumenon" the Son, then I find it interesting.  I have never really been convinced that there are doctrinal differences on this issue.

However, I do want to highlight that most of the time, the word tends to be referred to as an eternal origin, not an eternal/natural relationship.  I'm not sure if that makes any sense to you.  I don't think any theologian would disagree that the Spirit eternally has been sent from the Son because that would solidify the natural uncreated relationship that occurs.  But to be "proceeded" from as if to denote eternal origin must again be the Father alone, as I understand that's what the Catechism teaches.

St. Irenaeus teaches that the Son and Spirit are the two arms of God.  I don't know which other Church father said that the Son and Spirit are the words and breath of the Father in one shot.  Therefore, if one can say the breath proceeds from the word, the reverse might also be true.  Wherever the Spirit is, there is the Son and Father, and wherever the Son is, there is the Spirit and the Father.

A while ago, one of our Coptic scholars provided for us these beautiful translations from a tenth century Coptic abbott.  Take a look at this:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7580.msg98617.html#msg98617

This is a mystical understanding of the Trinity as Love and how the relationship of the hypostases represent that uncreated nature of Love.  There is a "perichoresis" here that is very important to highlight.  I think we cannot ignore this in our contemplation of the Trinity.

I am pretty sure if you read this, you might think this is what you have been saying all along.  If an EO reads this, they will also say the same.  So we need to take a step back rather than attacking each other to again ask and think deeply, "what do you mean".

There was this argument that if you were to say that the eternal origin of the Spirit is also from the Son, then that would make the Son "Father", not "Son".  I think there is merit in that.  This is an argument actually made by John of Damascus, in chapter 8 of his first book on the Orthodox Faith, way before the Filioque controversy blew up.  So I think you need to take the quotes in context and not jump to conclusions on what this or that father meant.

Is there an eternal relationship?  Yes.  But is the Spirit eternally originate from the Son?  I think you even agree that that is a big no no.  I am under the impression that's what the Roman Catholic Church says, and I think that should be the end of the discussion.

CHAPTER 21
That the Holy Spirit flows from the Son and this from eternity.

The same Doctors, moreover, also employ the term ‘outflowing’ to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. For Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “I send Apostles into the world, not in the power of man, but in the power of the Holy Spirit flowing out of my own essence.” Footnote And in the same discourse: “If it is not to be believed and preached of the Holy Spirit that he is the truth of the Father and Son, coessential with both, flowing out of their essence, how in the divine creed of saving baptism does God the Son, our Savior, count him with the Father and Himself as cooperating to effect our salvation?” Footnote And in his letter to Serapion he says: “The Holy Spirit caused it to be believed and proclaimed by the Fathers at Nicaea that the Son is coessential with him, as it were God flowing out of his essence.” Footnote And Cyril in the Thesaurus says: “When the Holy Spirit is poured out on us, he reveals us configured to God; for he flows out of the Father and the Son.”

    From this it is also established that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Son, precisely in having the divine essence from him.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Chapter 21 of what?
"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 LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,533
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
Chapter 21 of what?

"Against the Errors of the Greeks" by Thomas Aquinas.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2018, 01:43:34 AM by LivenotoneviL »
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
As you can see, Mina, the matter is resolved with those who admit (1) the Spirit proceeds eternally (which is what ekporeusis means) from the Father through the Son - it is not resolved for those who claim (2) the Spirit comes through the Son temporally only. The official representatives of your Church (see excerpt from study below) have agreed to (1). Some on this thread are still defending (2).

Vanyho, the Holy Spirit is not coming to you or to us in His eternal spiration. He is the Lord and giver of Life Who proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son. If the world had never been created, He would still proceed by ekporeomenon from the Father through the Son, just like the Son is eternally begotten from the Father.

Hi recent convert, at the Lord's Baptism, as you know, the waters did not make holy the Man, but the Man made holy the waters, that baptism for us may be sanctified. Similarly, He did not then obtain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as if He had it not before, but the heavens were opened to show what would happen to us in Baptism - that is, we receive the Holy Spirit when baptized. Sure, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, He said the Spirit would not come unless He went up to heaven; the question is, does the temporal sending in the divine economy reflect the eternal order in the divine ontology? We Latins say yes and in the Greek Church have said no.

Why is it none of the divine Persons is said to send the Father? Because the Father is the Monarch in the Trinity, even eternally. The Father sends the Son, the Son does not send the Father; the temporal sending is one of the many ways the Holy Trinity manifests or explains to us what was the eternal relations. Why does Jesus say the Holy Spirit will not come to us unless He goes to the Father? To show us, by a kind of analogy, what the eternal relationship was. For a similar reason, He breathed His Spirit on the Apostles.

Mina, to be more clear, if - but that is a big if and is not always true with everybody - it is acknowledged on both sides that the spiration of the Spirit from the Father through the Son is co-eternal with the generation of the Word, as the study below admits, then of course the Faith confessed by each is identical. All who confess what the study below confess what we Catholics believe.

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

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

The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character.

Sure, I don't think there's problem with much of what you write.  I just think you need to consider your audience and what they read and how they read it.

I will take your word for it.  If there are Greek fathers who do use "ekperoumenon" the Son, then I find it interesting.  I have never really been convinced that there are doctrinal differences on this issue.

However, I do want to highlight that most of the time, the word tends to be referred to as an eternal origin, not an eternal/natural relationship.  I'm not sure if that makes any sense to you.  I don't think any theologian would disagree that the Spirit eternally has been sent from the Son because that would solidify the natural uncreated relationship that occurs.  But to be "proceeded" from as if to denote eternal origin must again be the Father alone, as I understand that's what the Catechism teaches.

St. Irenaeus teaches that the Son and Spirit are the two arms of God.  I don't know which other Church father said that the Son and Spirit are the words and breath of the Father in one shot.  Therefore, if one can say the breath proceeds from the word, the reverse might also be true.  Wherever the Spirit is, there is the Son and Father, and wherever the Son is, there is the Spirit and the Father.

A while ago, one of our Coptic scholars provided for us these beautiful translations from a tenth century Coptic abbott.  Take a look at this:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7580.msg98617.html#msg98617

This is a mystical understanding of the Trinity as Love and how the relationship of the hypostases represent that uncreated nature of Love.  There is a "perichoresis" here that is very important to highlight.  I think we cannot ignore this in our contemplation of the Trinity.

I am pretty sure if you read this, you might think this is what you have been saying all along.  If an EO reads this, they will also say the same.  So we need to take a step back rather than attacking each other to again ask and think deeply, "what do you mean".

There was this argument that if you were to say that the eternal origin of the Spirit is also from the Son, then that would make the Son "Father", not "Son".  I think there is merit in that.  This is an argument actually made by John of Damascus, in chapter 8 of his first book on the Orthodox Faith, way before the Filioque controversy blew up.  So I think you need to take the quotes in context and not jump to conclusions on what this or that father meant.

Is there an eternal relationship?  Yes.  But is the Spirit eternally originate from the Son?  I think you even agree that that is a big no no.  I am under the impression that's what the Roman Catholic Church says, and I think that should be the end of the discussion.

CHAPTER 21
That the Holy Spirit flows from the Son and this from eternity.

The same Doctors, moreover, also employ the term ‘outflowing’ to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. For Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “I send Apostles into the world, not in the power of man, but in the power of the Holy Spirit flowing out of my own essence.” Footnote And in the same discourse: “If it is not to be believed and preached of the Holy Spirit that he is the truth of the Father and Son, coessential with both, flowing out of their essence, how in the divine creed of saving baptism does God the Son, our Savior, count him with the Father and Himself as cooperating to effect our salvation?” Footnote And in his letter to Serapion he says: “The Holy Spirit caused it to be believed and proclaimed by the Fathers at Nicaea that the Son is coessential with him, as it were God flowing out of his essence.” Footnote And Cyril in the Thesaurus says: “When the Holy Spirit is poured out on us, he reveals us configured to God; for he flows out of the Father and the Son.”

    From this it is also established that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Son, precisely in having the divine essence from him.

Quote
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
As you can see, Mina, the matter is resolved with those who admit (1) the Spirit proceeds eternally (which is what ekporeusis means) from the Father through the Son - it is not resolved for those who claim (2) the Spirit comes through the Son temporally only. The official representatives of your Church (see excerpt from study below) have agreed to (1). Some on this thread are still defending (2).

Vanyho, the Holy Spirit is not coming to you or to us in His eternal spiration. He is the Lord and giver of Life Who proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son. If the world had never been created, He would still proceed by ekporeomenon from the Father through the Son, just like the Son is eternally begotten from the Father.

Hi recent convert, at the Lord's Baptism, as you know, the waters did not make holy the Man, but the Man made holy the waters, that baptism for us may be sanctified. Similarly, He did not then obtain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as if He had it not before, but the heavens were opened to show what would happen to us in Baptism - that is, we receive the Holy Spirit when baptized. Sure, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, He said the Spirit would not come unless He went up to heaven; the question is, does the temporal sending in the divine economy reflect the eternal order in the divine ontology? We Latins say yes and in the Greek Church have said no.

Why is it none of the divine Persons is said to send the Father? Because the Father is the Monarch in the Trinity, even eternally. The Father sends the Son, the Son does not send the Father; the temporal sending is one of the many ways the Holy Trinity manifests or explains to us what was the eternal relations. Why does Jesus say the Holy Spirit will not come to us unless He goes to the Father? To show us, by a kind of analogy, what the eternal relationship was. For a similar reason, He breathed His Spirit on the Apostles.

Mina, to be more clear, if - but that is a big if and is not always true with everybody - it is acknowledged on both sides that the spiration of the Spirit from the Father through the Son is co-eternal with the generation of the Word, as the study below admits, then of course the Faith confessed by each is identical. All who confess what the study below confess what we Catholics believe.

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

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

The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character.

Sure, I don't think there's problem with much of what you write.  I just think you need to consider your audience and what they read and how they read it.

I will take your word for it.  If there are Greek fathers who do use "ekperoumenon" the Son, then I find it interesting.  I have never really been convinced that there are doctrinal differences on this issue.

However, I do want to highlight that most of the time, the word tends to be referred to as an eternal origin, not an eternal/natural relationship.  I'm not sure if that makes any sense to you.  I don't think any theologian would disagree that the Spirit eternally has been sent from the Son because that would solidify the natural uncreated relationship that occurs.  But to be "proceeded" from as if to denote eternal origin must again be the Father alone, as I understand that's what the Catechism teaches.

St. Irenaeus teaches that the Son and Spirit are the two arms of God.  I don't know which other Church father said that the Son and Spirit are the words and breath of the Father in one shot.  Therefore, if one can say the breath proceeds from the word, the reverse might also be true.  Wherever the Spirit is, there is the Son and Father, and wherever the Son is, there is the Spirit and the Father.

A while ago, one of our Coptic scholars provided for us these beautiful translations from a tenth century Coptic abbott.  Take a look at this:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7580.msg98617.html#msg98617

This is a mystical understanding of the Trinity as Love and how the relationship of the hypostases represent that uncreated nature of Love.  There is a "perichoresis" here that is very important to highlight.  I think we cannot ignore this in our contemplation of the Trinity.

I am pretty sure if you read this, you might think this is what you have been saying all along.  If an EO reads this, they will also say the same.  So we need to take a step back rather than attacking each other to again ask and think deeply, "what do you mean".

There was this argument that if you were to say that the eternal origin of the Spirit is also from the Son, then that would make the Son "Father", not "Son".  I think there is merit in that.  This is an argument actually made by John of Damascus, in chapter 8 of his first book on the Orthodox Faith, way before the Filioque controversy blew up.  So I think you need to take the quotes in context and not jump to conclusions on what this or that father meant.

Is there an eternal relationship?  Yes.  But is the Spirit eternally originate from the Son?  I think you even agree that that is a big no no.  I am under the impression that's what the Roman Catholic Church says, and I think that should be the end of the discussion.

CHAPTER 21
That the Holy Spirit flows from the Son and this from eternity.

The same Doctors, moreover, also employ the term ‘outflowing’ to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. For Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “I send Apostles into the world, not in the power of man, but in the power of the Holy Spirit flowing out of my own essence.” Footnote And in the same discourse: “If it is not to be believed and preached of the Holy Spirit that he is the truth of the Father and Son, coessential with both, flowing out of their essence, how in the divine creed of saving baptism does God the Son, our Savior, count him with the Father and Himself as cooperating to effect our salvation?” Footnote And in his letter to Serapion he says: “The Holy Spirit caused it to be believed and proclaimed by the Fathers at Nicaea that the Son is coessential with him, as it were God flowing out of his essence.” Footnote And Cyril in the Thesaurus says: “When the Holy Spirit is poured out on us, he reveals us configured to God; for he flows out of the Father and the Son.”

    From this it is also established that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Son, precisely in having the divine essence from him.

Quote

the only fake I see is you and your ilk

Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.”  So, too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”
Patet igitur quod nullo modo sunt tolerandi qui spiritum sanctum a filio procedere negant.    

It is, therefore, clear that in no way are they to be tolerated who deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.


Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,879
Sedevacantist,

Peace and greetings from those who are in no way to be tolerated but whose fora may still be (ab)used.

Watch yourself.

I salute you,
Antonis
Section Moderator

"Verily they that seek Thee, Lord, and keep the canons of Thy Holy Church shall never want any good thing.”
St. John the Merciful

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,533
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
As you can see, Mina, the matter is resolved with those who admit (1) the Spirit proceeds eternally (which is what ekporeusis means) from the Father through the Son - it is not resolved for those who claim (2) the Spirit comes through the Son temporally only. The official representatives of your Church (see excerpt from study below) have agreed to (1). Some on this thread are still defending (2).

Vanyho, the Holy Spirit is not coming to you or to us in His eternal spiration. He is the Lord and giver of Life Who proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son. If the world had never been created, He would still proceed by ekporeomenon from the Father through the Son, just like the Son is eternally begotten from the Father.

Hi recent convert, at the Lord's Baptism, as you know, the waters did not make holy the Man, but the Man made holy the waters, that baptism for us may be sanctified. Similarly, He did not then obtain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as if He had it not before, but the heavens were opened to show what would happen to us in Baptism - that is, we receive the Holy Spirit when baptized. Sure, the Son sends the Holy Spirit, He said the Spirit would not come unless He went up to heaven; the question is, does the temporal sending in the divine economy reflect the eternal order in the divine ontology? We Latins say yes and in the Greek Church have said no.

Why is it none of the divine Persons is said to send the Father? Because the Father is the Monarch in the Trinity, even eternally. The Father sends the Son, the Son does not send the Father; the temporal sending is one of the many ways the Holy Trinity manifests or explains to us what was the eternal relations. Why does Jesus say the Holy Spirit will not come to us unless He goes to the Father? To show us, by a kind of analogy, what the eternal relationship was. For a similar reason, He breathed His Spirit on the Apostles.

Mina, to be more clear, if - but that is a big if and is not always true with everybody - it is acknowledged on both sides that the spiration of the Spirit from the Father through the Son is co-eternal with the generation of the Word, as the study below admits, then of course the Faith confessed by each is identical. All who confess what the study below confess what we Catholics believe.

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

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

The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character.

Sure, I don't think there's problem with much of what you write.  I just think you need to consider your audience and what they read and how they read it.

I will take your word for it.  If there are Greek fathers who do use "ekperoumenon" the Son, then I find it interesting.  I have never really been convinced that there are doctrinal differences on this issue.

However, I do want to highlight that most of the time, the word tends to be referred to as an eternal origin, not an eternal/natural relationship.  I'm not sure if that makes any sense to you.  I don't think any theologian would disagree that the Spirit eternally has been sent from the Son because that would solidify the natural uncreated relationship that occurs.  But to be "proceeded" from as if to denote eternal origin must again be the Father alone, as I understand that's what the Catechism teaches.

St. Irenaeus teaches that the Son and Spirit are the two arms of God.  I don't know which other Church father said that the Son and Spirit are the words and breath of the Father in one shot.  Therefore, if one can say the breath proceeds from the word, the reverse might also be true.  Wherever the Spirit is, there is the Son and Father, and wherever the Son is, there is the Spirit and the Father.

A while ago, one of our Coptic scholars provided for us these beautiful translations from a tenth century Coptic abbott.  Take a look at this:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7580.msg98617.html#msg98617

This is a mystical understanding of the Trinity as Love and how the relationship of the hypostases represent that uncreated nature of Love.  There is a "perichoresis" here that is very important to highlight.  I think we cannot ignore this in our contemplation of the Trinity.

I am pretty sure if you read this, you might think this is what you have been saying all along.  If an EO reads this, they will also say the same.  So we need to take a step back rather than attacking each other to again ask and think deeply, "what do you mean".

There was this argument that if you were to say that the eternal origin of the Spirit is also from the Son, then that would make the Son "Father", not "Son".  I think there is merit in that.  This is an argument actually made by John of Damascus, in chapter 8 of his first book on the Orthodox Faith, way before the Filioque controversy blew up.  So I think you need to take the quotes in context and not jump to conclusions on what this or that father meant.

Is there an eternal relationship?  Yes.  But is the Spirit eternally originate from the Son?  I think you even agree that that is a big no no.  I am under the impression that's what the Roman Catholic Church says, and I think that should be the end of the discussion.

CHAPTER 21
That the Holy Spirit flows from the Son and this from eternity.

The same Doctors, moreover, also employ the term ‘outflowing’ to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. For Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “I send Apostles into the world, not in the power of man, but in the power of the Holy Spirit flowing out of my own essence.” Footnote And in the same discourse: “If it is not to be believed and preached of the Holy Spirit that he is the truth of the Father and Son, coessential with both, flowing out of their essence, how in the divine creed of saving baptism does God the Son, our Savior, count him with the Father and Himself as cooperating to effect our salvation?” Footnote And in his letter to Serapion he says: “The Holy Spirit caused it to be believed and proclaimed by the Fathers at Nicaea that the Son is coessential with him, as it were God flowing out of his essence.” Footnote And Cyril in the Thesaurus says: “When the Holy Spirit is poured out on us, he reveals us configured to God; for he flows out of the Father and the Son.”

    From this it is also established that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Son, precisely in having the divine essence from him.

Quote

the only fake I see is you and your ilk

Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.”  So, too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”
Patet igitur quod nullo modo sunt tolerandi qui spiritum sanctum a filio procedere negant.    

It is, therefore, clear that in no way are they to be tolerated who deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Hasn't this already been discussed at length about how Thomas Aquinas's citations are almost all forgeries? And believe it or not, the Orthodox don't recognize Thomas Aquinas as an infallible authority.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2018, 12:44:39 AM by LivenotoneviL »
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,973
They are not all forgeries, but a good number of them were translated badly when they were translated into Latin, or contain glosses which were added by the translator. Therein lies the irony of Thomas Aquinas' work on the subject. The entire sort of thrust of his arguments on the procession of the Holy Spirit found in Contra Errores Graecorum (which it should be noted is not what Aquinas himself titled the work; his original intentions were actually eirenic) and in his other works is that there was a linguistic misunderstanding. While he was correct that there was a misunderstanding, his inability to work from the original Greek prevented him from seeing where the linguistic misunderstanding actually was.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,533
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,904
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Sedevacantist,

Peace and greetings from those who are in no way to be tolerated but whose fora may still be (ab)used.

Watch yourself.

I salute you,
Antonis
Section Moderator


I greet you with a holy kiss.  The church which meets in my bedroom salutes you.
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,973
https://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

I am well aware of these forgeries, most of which relate to papal claims to supremacy. But the statement that most of Aquinas' sources were forgeries is not true. On the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit many are simply bad translations of genuine works which are extant in Greek. There is no sense in combatting bad doctrine with falsehood. The truth suffices, which in this case is to say that Thomas was simply unable to deal with the primary sources themselves because of the language barrier. What he did instead was base his argument on a host of translations which were inaccurate because they did not distinguish beteeen terms like εκπορεύεσθαι and προιέναι. He was thus ill-equipped to deal with the argument made by the Greek side on this issue, because the nuance here was lost in translation.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2018, 03:03:31 PM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,533
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
https://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

I am well aware of these forgeries, most of which relate to papal claims to supremacy. But the statement that most of Aquinas' sources were forgeries is not true. On the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit many are simply bad translations of genuine works which are extant in Greek. There is no sense in combatting bad doctrine with falsehood. The truth suffices, which in this case is to say that Thomas was simply unable to deal with the primary sources themselves because of the language barrier. What he did instead was base his argument on a host of translations which were inaccurate because they did not distinguish beteeen terms like εκπορεύεσθαι and προιέναι. He was thus ill-equipped to deal with the argument made by the Greek side on this issue, because the nuance here was lost in translation.

Ah, okay. My bad.
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,879
Sedevacantist,

Peace and greetings from those who are in no way to be tolerated but whose fora may still be (ab)used.

Watch yourself.

I salute you,
Antonis
Section Moderator


I greet you with a holy kiss.  The church which meets in my bedroom salutes you.
;)
"Verily they that seek Thee, Lord, and keep the canons of Thy Holy Church shall never want any good thing.”
St. John the Merciful

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
https://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

I am well aware of these forgeries, most of which relate to papal claims to supremacy. But the statement that most of Aquinas' sources were forgeries is not true. On the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit many are simply bad translations of genuine works which are extant in Greek. There is no sense in combatting bad doctrine with falsehood. The truth suffices, which in this case is to say that Thomas was simply unable to deal with the primary sources themselves because of the language barrier. What he did instead was base his argument on a host of translations which were inaccurate because they did not distinguish beteeen terms like εκπορεύεσθαι and προιέναι. He was thus ill-equipped to deal with the argument made by the Greek side on this issue, because the nuance here was lost in translation.

Alright. Good to know.
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
under the impression that's what the Roman Catholic Church says, and I think that should be the end of the discussion.

CHAPTER 21
That the Holy Spirit flows from the Son and this from eternity.

The same Doctors, moreover, also employ the term ‘outflowing’ to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. For Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “I send Apostles into the world, not in the power of man, but in the power of the Holy Spirit flowing out of my own essence.” Footnote And in the same discourse: “If it is not to be believed and preached of the Holy Spirit that he is the truth of the Father and Son, coessential with both, flowing out of their essence, how in the divine creed of saving baptism does God the Son, our Savior, count him with the Father and Himself as cooperating to effect our salvation?” Footnote And in his letter to Serapion he says: “The Holy Spirit caused it to be believed and proclaimed by the Fathers at Nicaea that the Son is coessential with him, as it were God flowing out of his essence.” Footnote And Cyril in the Thesaurus says: “When the Holy Spirit is poured out on us, he reveals us configured to God; for he flows out of the Father and the Son.”

    From this it is also established that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Son, precisely in having the divine essence from him.
[/quote]

Quote
[/quote]

the only fake I see is you and your ilk

Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.”  So, too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”
Patet igitur quod nullo modo sunt tolerandi qui spiritum sanctum a filio procedere negant.    

It is, therefore, clear that in no way are they to be tolerated who deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
[/quote]

Hasn't this already been discussed at length about how Thomas Aquinas's citations are almost all forgeries? And believe it or not, the Orthodox don't recognize Thomas Aquinas as an infallible authority.
[/quote]

Someone on this forum claims it's a forgery and you actually believe it??? don't you care for your soul?

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,533
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
I trust a scholar than a random internet poster.
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
under the impression that's what the Roman Catholic Church says, and I think that should be the end of the discussion.

CHAPTER 21
That the Holy Spirit flows from the Son and this from eternity.

The same Doctors, moreover, also employ the term ‘outflowing’ to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. For Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “I send Apostles into the world, not in the power of man, but in the power of the Holy Spirit flowing out of my own essence.” Footnote And in the same discourse: “If it is not to be believed and preached of the Holy Spirit that he is the truth of the Father and Son, coessential with both, flowing out of their essence, how in the divine creed of saving baptism does God the Son, our Savior, count him with the Father and Himself as cooperating to effect our salvation?” Footnote And in his letter to Serapion he says: “The Holy Spirit caused it to be believed and proclaimed by the Fathers at Nicaea that the Son is coessential with him, as it were God flowing out of his essence.” Footnote And Cyril in the Thesaurus says: “When the Holy Spirit is poured out on us, he reveals us configured to God; for he flows out of the Father and the Son.”

    From this it is also established that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Son, precisely in having the divine essence from him.

Quote
[/quote]

the only fake I see is you and your ilk

Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.”  So, too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”
Patet igitur quod nullo modo sunt tolerandi qui spiritum sanctum a filio procedere negant.    

It is, therefore, clear that in no way are they to be tolerated who deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
[/quote]

Hasn't this already been discussed at length about how Thomas Aquinas's citations are almost all forgeries? And believe it or not, the Orthodox don't recognize Thomas Aquinas as an infallible authority.
[/quote]

Someone on this forum claims it's a forgery and you actually believe it??? don't you care for your soul?
[/quote]

Don't you care for how annoying multiple question marks are???
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,973
CHAPTER 21
That the Holy Spirit flows from the Son and this from eternity.

The same Doctors, moreover, also employ the term ‘outflowing’ to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. For Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “I send Apostles into the world, not in the power of man, but in the power of the Holy Spirit flowing out of my own essence.” Footnote And in the same discourse: “If it is not to be believed and preached of the Holy Spirit that he is the truth of the Father and Son, coessential with both, flowing out of their essence, how in the divine creed of saving baptism does God the Son, our Savior, count him with the Father and Himself as cooperating to effect our salvation?” Footnote And in his letter to Serapion he says: “The Holy Spirit caused it to be believed and proclaimed by the Fathers at Nicaea that the Son is coessential with him, as it were God flowing out of his essence.” Footnote And Cyril in the Thesaurus says: “When the Holy Spirit is poured out on us, he reveals us configured to God; for he flows out of the Father and the Son.”

This is where you have not been careful to check your sources. The citations from St. Athanasius are not from any known work of his.

The citation from St. Cyril («Ὄτε τοίνυν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐν ἡμῖν γενόμενον, συμμόρφους ἀποδεικνύει Θεοῦ, πρόεισι δὲ καὶ ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ, πρόδηλον ὄτι τῆς θείας ἐστὶν οὐσίας, οὐσιωδῶς ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς προϊόν.» roughly, "When accordingly the Holy Spirit happens to be in us, it shows [us] forth as conformed to God, and [the Spirit] progresses from both the Father and the Son. It is clear that [the Spirit] is of the divine substance, being substantially in it and progressing from it") is not much evidence in your favor. That the Holy Spirit is sent into creation (or to use St. Cyril's choice of verb, πρόεισι) from the Son is not something which is disputed. The Holy Spirit, however, does not proceed (ἐκπορεύεται) from the divine substance but rather from the person of the Father, for if the Spirit could be said to proceed from the divine substance by virtue of which one might also say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, it would be equally valid to confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Itself, which is absurd.

The Holy Spirit is in some sense the enhypostatization of the outpouring of the divine substance, that is, its ek-static outworking (or to use the proper term, ἐνέργεια or operation), and by virtue of this, it is possible to say that the Holy Spirit progresses (πρόεισι) from the Son as the operation of the divine substance which is in the Son, whereas it is impossible to confess that the Holy Spirit is caused by the Son since this would violate the monarchy of the Father, and hence we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός), but not from the Son.

From this it is also established that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Son, precisely in having the divine essence from him.

That is not a sound conclusion, as it would deny that the Father is the sole source of divinity. If the Holy Spirit has substance from the Son, then the Son is yet another cause and source of divinity (albeit a secondary one), and this we cannot confess. The Holy Spirit is eternally manifest through the Son (as the operation of the divine nature), and in this sense proceeds through the Son, but the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, for the Holy Spirit receives subsistance (ὑπόστασις) solely from the Father, Who is the only source of divinity.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2018, 11:39:10 PM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,973
The problem with Aquinas' work here in general is that he was unfamiliar with the Greek understanding of the Patristic sources. The Greek Fathers writing in defense of the divinity of the Holy Trinity argued for the divinity of the Holy Spirit from the scriptural basis that the Son sends the Spirit to renew creation. It follows, according to them, that the Holy Spirit must also be divine, for what is not divine cannot impart the operation of the divine nature to created things. Yet the Greek Fathers were also careful to preserve the Father as the source of all divinity, so as not to fall into polytheism or any sort of Neoplatonic scheme (akin to the One, the Intellect, and the Soul of Plotinus). They confessed, in other words, one God in three hypostases, with the Father as the hypostatic source of all Godhead as well as the source of the other hypostases by way of relation, therefore adhering to strict monotheism. To say that the Son therefore is the source of the Holy Spirit in eternity (by extension of the Son sending the Holy Spirit into creation) presents a quandary insofar as it undermines the strict monarchy of the Father which is well established in the theology of the Greek Fathers. To resolve this conflict of how the Son could manifest the Spirit into creation and yet not be the cause of the Holy Spirit, the Greeks would argue that the Son indeed has an eternal relation to the Holy Spirit, one of an eternal manifestation (this was officially defined at the Synod of Blachernae), but not an eternal relation with respect to cause, which is properly the relation of the Father to the Holy Spirit. In this way, the phrasing of St. Tarasius that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son became a convenient sort of shorthand for the synthesis and summary of Greek Patristic thought on the subject rather than regarded as evidence to the contrary that the Holy Spirit has a causal relation with the Son.

Sedevacantist, I am sure that you are filled with zeal for your faith, which is no doubt why you have read works of Aquinas, but on this matter, I am afraid that Thomas was simply unable to argue effectively, because of his lack of contextual information. He was working, as many of the schoolmen, from limited translations of Greek works into Latin (a tremendous testament to how seriously they took study of the Fathers, to be sure, since before then, translations were much rarer), and they were often filled with glosses and inaccuracies, and very rarely was the entire context of the quotation considered (indeed, the scholastic method had a primary weakness insofar as it was wont to consider citations in isolation rather than in the context in which they were written), and he was simply unaware of what the Greeks at this time were themselves debating and arguing. Your zeal, while commendable, might be better served by studying the Patristic sources more in depth rather than as a selection of isolated quotations. There is more to seeking out the mind of the Fathers than repeating hoary arguments from over 7 centuries ago. Engage with the sources and then assess the arguments built around them. I think you would be surprised or perhaps even delighted by the diversity of their thought and their concerns, and even more so would you find enjoyment in seeing how later Fathers show forth the inner unity of the thought of earlier ones through synthesizing their doctrines.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 476
  • Most Precious Blood of Jesus, Save Us!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
To briefly address some of the questions asked.

Tsimis, well, I assure you it is Catholic doctrine to say the Word and the Spirit originate from the Father; the one by generation and the other by spiration. The question is, how are the Word and the Spirit related to and distinguished from each other? We say the Spiration/Procession of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Word; this is what is signified by ekporeumenon. And so the Spirit is distinguished from the Son in that the Spirit is through the Son but the Son is not through the Spirit.

This excerpt from Florence should be helpful in clarifying the expression one spiration,
Quote
"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. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind."

Cavaradossi, I am amazed anyone can question or deny ekporeumenon refers to one eternal spiration. The NC creed said "ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon" and St. Tarasius, in developing this symbol, rendered it, "ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon". Everyone can see St. Tarasius is saying ekporeuomenon itself is mediated through the Word. Indeed, the Catholic-Orthodox scholars translated St. Tarasius formula as "Who takes His origin from the Father through the Word". That answers your first objection about one spiration, there is only one spiration because there is only one Spirit, the same Spirit Who originates in the Father is eternally in and hypostatically through the Son.

There are many other Eastern authorities that call the Word the mediator, middle term, median etc between the Father and His Spirit. We will take 3 that were mentioned on this thread.

1. St. Maximus and St. Damascene: both of these say the Father is the sole unoriginate cause, i.e. aitia. They do not mean what Blachernae claims they means, this is seen easily from 2 texts. St. Maximus - from the study's translation and transliteration. "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)". Can you see it? The Holy Spirit in His Being comes from the Father through the Only Begotten. St. Maximus says this does not make the Son the Aitia, because Aitia means Unoriginate Cause, Arche Anarchos. That is why we call the Father principle without principle and fount of divinity even in the west. This statement of St. Maximus means it is not His grace only that comes through the Son, but even His divine hypostasis. This, in fact, is what distinguishes the Persons in eternity, otherwise Son and Spirit would be a single person, without an eternal hypostatic relationshiop between them. Blachernae was wrong and Patriarch +John Bekkus was right.

In Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, 1:12 St. Damascene says the Father is "through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit". St. Damascene is calling "production" what we call spiration. The sense is, by way of analogy, a fruit is produced by a tree on its branch and through its branch. This is the same sense in which we say tree and branch are one principle of the fruit, not two, and sunlight one principle of heat, a river and its stream one principle of a fountain etc

2. St. Cyril: St. Cyril uses proeisi to signify the procession, ""The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiwdwV) in it and from it". Can we not see that St. Cyril is speaking about a relative procession that is still in the order of substance/essence? That is why St. Maximus also uses the term proeisi to translate procession from the Son, and makes clear after this that "it shows forth the unity and identity of the essence". If St. Cyril was talking about a procession outside the Godhead, he wouldn't use essence. Proeisi and proion signify a relative procession. This relative procession doesn't make the Son Aitia, Cavaradossi, but it is eternal. That is the only way to reconcile the 2 Traditions, Cavaradossi. If we say Spirit proceeds from the Son, we should translate that by proeisi, to make clear it is relative; but to say, Spirit proceeds from Father through the Son, that is rendered ekporeumenon itself.

3 western authorities. In the west, as the study notes, the dogma of the Filioque was found useful against Arianism, in 589, 3rd council of Toledo. This shows the west understood Filioque as eternal spiration. St. Ambrose uses it against Macedonians, which reiterates the same point. The Spirit is declared to be Consubstantial from the Father and the Son by proceeding from Them. St. Leo against Sabelianism, which shows the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the Persons of the Father and the Son; the Three Persons are thereby distinct. St. Maximus and St. Damascene, like St. Cyril and St. Tarasius, express that the Spirit has His ekporeusis/spiration from the Father through the Son.
Locution, Aug 18, 2014: "They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world. http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Xavier, can you let us know the source for all this verbiage you're dumping on us?
"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 sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
To briefly address some of the questions asked.

Tsimis, well, I assure you it is Catholic doctrine to say the Word and the Spirit originate from the Father; the one by generation and the other by spiration. The question is, how are the Word and the Spirit related to and distinguished from each other? We say the Spiration/Procession of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Word; this is what is signified by ekporeumenon. And so the Spirit is distinguished from the Son in that the Spirit is through the Son but the Son is not through the Spirit.

This excerpt from Florence should be helpful in clarifying the expression one spiration,
Quote
"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. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind."

Cavaradossi, I am amazed anyone can question or deny ekporeumenon refers to one eternal spiration. The NC creed said "ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon" and St. Tarasius, in developing this symbol, rendered it, "ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon". Everyone can see St. Tarasius is saying ekporeuomenon itself is mediated through the Word. Indeed, the Catholic-Orthodox scholars translated St. Tarasius formula as "Who takes His origin from the Father through the Word". That answers your first objection about one spiration, there is only one spiration because there is only one Spirit, the same Spirit Who originates in the Father is eternally in and hypostatically through the Son.

There are many other Eastern authorities that call the Word the mediator, middle term, median etc between the Father and His Spirit. We will take 3 that were mentioned on this thread.

1. St. Maximus and St. Damascene: both of these say the Father is the sole unoriginate cause, i.e. aitia. They do not mean what Blachernae claims they means, this is seen easily from 2 texts. St. Maximus - from the study's translation and transliteration. "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)". Can you see it? The Holy Spirit in His Being comes from the Father through the Only Begotten. St. Maximus says this does not make the Son the Aitia, because Aitia means Unoriginate Cause, Arche Anarchos. That is why we call the Father principle without principle and fount of divinity even in the west. This statement of St. Maximus means it is not His grace only that comes through the Son, but even His divine hypostasis. This, in fact, is what distinguishes the Persons in eternity, otherwise Son and Spirit would be a single person, without an eternal hypostatic relationshiop between them. Blachernae was wrong and Patriarch +John Bekkus was right.

In Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, 1:12 St. Damascene says the Father is "through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit". St. Damascene is calling "production" what we call spiration. The sense is, by way of analogy, a fruit is produced by a tree on its branch and through its branch. This is the same sense in which we say tree and branch are one principle of the fruit, not two, and sunlight one principle of heat, a river and its stream one principle of a fountain etc

2. St. Cyril: St. Cyril uses proeisi to signify the procession, ""The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiwdwV) in it and from it". Can we not see that St. Cyril is speaking about a relative procession that is still in the order of substance/essence? That is why St. Maximus also uses the term proeisi to translate procession from the Son, and makes clear after this that "it shows forth the unity and identity of the essence". If St. Cyril was talking about a procession outside the Godhead, he wouldn't use essence. Proeisi and proion signify a relative procession. This relative procession doesn't make the Son Aitia, Cavaradossi, but it is eternal. That is the only way to reconcile the 2 Traditions, Cavaradossi. If we say Spirit proceeds from the Son, we should translate that by proeisi, to make clear it is relative; but to say, Spirit proceeds from Father through the Son, that is rendered ekporeumenon itself.

3 western authorities. In the west, as the study notes, the dogma of the Filioque was found useful against Arianism, in 589, 3rd council of Toledo. This shows the west understood Filioque as eternal spiration. St. Ambrose uses it against Macedonians, which reiterates the same point. The Spirit is declared to be Consubstantial from the Father and the Son by proceeding from Them. St. Leo against Sabelianism, which shows the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the Persons of the Father and the Son; the Three Persons are thereby distinct. St. Maximus and St. Damascene, like St. Cyril and St. Tarasius, express that the Spirit has His ekporeusis/spiration from the Father through the Son.
well written, are you a traditional catholic?

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
To briefly address some of the questions asked.

Tsimis, well, I assure you it is Catholic doctrine to say the Word and the Spirit originate from the Father; the one by generation and the other by spiration. The question is, how are the Word and the Spirit related to and distinguished from each other? We say the Spiration/Procession of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Word; this is what is signified by ekporeumenon. And so the Spirit is distinguished from the Son in that the Spirit is through the Son but the Son is not through the Spirit.

This excerpt from Florence should be helpful in clarifying the expression one spiration,
Quote
"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. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind."

Cavaradossi, I am amazed anyone can question or deny ekporeumenon refers to one eternal spiration. The NC creed said "ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon" and St. Tarasius, in developing this symbol, rendered it, "ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon". Everyone can see St. Tarasius is saying ekporeuomenon itself is mediated through the Word. Indeed, the Catholic-Orthodox scholars translated St. Tarasius formula as "Who takes His origin from the Father through the Word". That answers your first objection about one spiration, there is only one spiration because there is only one Spirit, the same Spirit Who originates in the Father is eternally in and hypostatically through the Son.

There are many other Eastern authorities that call the Word the mediator, middle term, median etc between the Father and His Spirit. We will take 3 that were mentioned on this thread.

1. St. Maximus and St. Damascene: both of these say the Father is the sole unoriginate cause, i.e. aitia. They do not mean what Blachernae claims they means, this is seen easily from 2 texts. St. Maximus - from the study's translation and transliteration. "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)". Can you see it? The Holy Spirit in His Being comes from the Father through the Only Begotten. St. Maximus says this does not make the Son the Aitia, because Aitia means Unoriginate Cause, Arche Anarchos. That is why we call the Father principle without principle and fount of divinity even in the west. This statement of St. Maximus means it is not His grace only that comes through the Son, but even His divine hypostasis. This, in fact, is what distinguishes the Persons in eternity, otherwise Son and Spirit would be a single person, without an eternal hypostatic relationshiop between them. Blachernae was wrong and Patriarch +John Bekkus was right.

In Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, 1:12 St. Damascene says the Father is "through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit". St. Damascene is calling "production" what we call spiration. The sense is, by way of analogy, a fruit is produced by a tree on its branch and through its branch. This is the same sense in which we say tree and branch are one principle of the fruit, not two, and sunlight one principle of heat, a river and its stream one principle of a fountain etc

2. St. Cyril: St. Cyril uses proeisi to signify the procession, ""The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiwdwV) in it and from it". Can we not see that St. Cyril is speaking about a relative procession that is still in the order of substance/essence? That is why St. Maximus also uses the term proeisi to translate procession from the Son, and makes clear after this that "it shows forth the unity and identity of the essence". If St. Cyril was talking about a procession outside the Godhead, he wouldn't use essence. Proeisi and proion signify a relative procession. This relative procession doesn't make the Son Aitia, Cavaradossi, but it is eternal. That is the only way to reconcile the 2 Traditions, Cavaradossi. If we say Spirit proceeds from the Son, we should translate that by proeisi, to make clear it is relative; but to say, Spirit proceeds from Father through the Son, that is rendered ekporeumenon itself.

3 western authorities. In the west, as the study notes, the dogma of the Filioque was found useful against Arianism, in 589, 3rd council of Toledo. This shows the west understood Filioque as eternal spiration. St. Ambrose uses it against Macedonians, which reiterates the same point. The Spirit is declared to be Consubstantial from the Father and the Son by proceeding from Them. St. Leo against Sabelianism, which shows the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the Persons of the Father and the Son; the Three Persons are thereby distinct. St. Maximus and St. Damascene, like St. Cyril and St. Tarasius, express that the Spirit has His ekporeusis/spiration from the Father through the Son.
well written, are you a traditional catholic?

At least he arranges his cribbing nicely, unlike your data dumps mid-thread.
"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 Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,973
Cavaradossi, I am amazed anyone can question or deny ekporeumenon refers to one eternal spiration. The NC creed said "ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon" and St. Tarasius, in developing this symbol, rendered it, "ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon". Everyone can see St. Tarasius is saying ekporeuomenon itself is mediated through the Word. Indeed, the Catholic-Orthodox scholars translated St. Tarasius formula as "Who takes His origin from the Father through the Word". That answers your first objection about one spiration, there is only one spiration because there is only one Spirit, the same Spirit Who originates in the Father is eternally in and hypostatically through the Son.

That is completely inaccurate to what the verb ἐκπορεύω signifies. Ἐκπορέυω literally means "I cause [some one] to go out", and hence in the mediopassive it takes the sense of "being made to go out" or "being driven out" or in a militaristic sense "to march out" (since when one marches, one is in some sense caused to do so). What gives the word a sense of origination is the prefixed preposition ἐκ, and hence we expect to find the source out from which one is caused to go either to appear alone in the genitive or with the the preposition ἐκ. Now if another word appears with the preposition διὰ, as it does with the confession of St. Tarasios, the most natural interpretation would not be to understand διὰ in an instrumental sense, but as a continuation of the spatial metaphor. The Holy Spirit in other words, is made to go out from the Father through the Son, just as one could say, "I was marching from Macedon through Boeotia to Athens" (ἐξεπορευόμην ἐκ Μακεδόνος διὰ Βοιωτία εἰς Ἀθήνας). Boeotia here is not in any sense an instrument by which the marching is accomplished. It is your interpretation of instrumentality which is forced and unnatural.

There are many other Eastern authorities that call the Word the mediator, middle term, median etc between the Father and His Spirit. We will take 3 that were mentioned on this thread.

Nobody disagrees with them. The question is in what sense they mean that.

1. St. Maximus and St. Damascene: both of these say the Father is the sole unoriginate cause, i.e. aitia.

That is not the natural reading of the term αἰτία. Αἰτία simply means cause. To demonstrate what you claim, you would need to find the Fathers referencing the Son as a caused cause or an originate cause, something which is foreign to their theology.

They do not mean what Blachernae claims they means, this is seen easily from 2 texts. St. Maximus - from the study's translation and transliteration. "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)". Can you see it?

The only thing that I see is that you have butchered the original quotation which reads, «Τὸ γὰρ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὥσπερ φύσει κατ' οὐσίαν ὑπάρχει τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς, οὕτως καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ φύσει κατ' οὐσίαν ἐστὶν, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσιωδῶς, δι' Υἱοῦ γεννηθέντος, ἀφράστως ἐκπορευόμενον·» (PG 90 672C) which translated reads, "For the Holy Spirit by nature is of the Son [or one might say proper to the Son] according to substance, just as [the Spirit] is by nature of the Father according to substance, since [the Spirit] substantially proceeds from the Father through the Son." Here, the first two clauses explain the meaning of the third clause, which is to say that proceeding from the Father through the Son is another way of expressing the Spirit's belonging to the Son and the Father by nature according to substance, but not the idea that the Spirit is caused by or receives being from the Son, something which is foreign to the thought of St. Maximus.

The Holy Spirit in His Being comes from the Father through the Only Begotten.

As you can see from the full quotation, no, that is not what St. Maximus meant. The expression shows that the Spirit is proper to the Son, not that the Spirit takes being through the Son in an instrumental fashion.

Maximus says this does not make the Son the Aitia, because Aitia means Unoriginate Cause, Arche Anarchos.

No, again, that is an inappropriately restrictive and unnatural reading of the term αἰτία, which simply means cause. When St. Maximus denies that the Son is αἰτία, he means to deny that the Son is cause in an unrestricted sense.

That is why we call the Father principle without principle and fount of divinity even in the west. This statement of St. Maximus means it is not His grace only that comes through the Son, but even His divine hypostasis. This, in fact, is what distinguishes the Persons in eternity, otherwise Son and Spirit would be a single person, without an eternal hypostatic relationshiop between them.

Nobody denies an eternal relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit. What is denied is that relation being a relation of cause or origin.

Blachernae was wrong and Patriarch +John Bekkus was right.

Bekkos was a rightfully condemned heretic. The texts you quote actually support Blachernae when they are given in full and not edited and mangled in translation.

In Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, 1:12 St. Damascene says the Father is "through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit". St. Damascene is calling "production" what we call spiration.

The word in Greek is προβολεύς which means not producer in the sense of one who creates, but one who performs the action of προβάλλειν which is the act of throwing out or bringing forward (προβολή). Again, St. John's meaning is lost on you in translation because you evidently do not understand Greek. The Son is in no way cause of the Holy Spirit, something which St. John and St. Maximus both deny, but rather the one Who manifests the Spirit.

2. St. Cyril: St. Cyril uses proeisi to signify the procession, ""The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiwdwV) in it and from it". Can we not see that St. Cyril is speaking about a relative procession that is still in the order of substance/essence? That is why St. Maximus also uses the term proeisi to translate procession from the Son, and makes clear after this that "it shows forth the unity and identity of the essence".

Actually, you are the one who is not seeing. There exists a distinction between the verbs προϊέναι and ἐκπορεύεσθαι. That the Spirit is said to progress (προϊέναι) is used to signify the consubstantial unity of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, whereas the term ἐκπορεύεσθαι is used to refer to the Spirit's unique hypostatic origination from the Father. Again, it cannot be that προϊέναι signifies a type of hypostatic relation here. Why? Because if the Spirit proceeds from the divine Substance, then the Spirit must necessarily proceed from Itself. Here it signifies a type of motion in continuity, just as one may speak of time progressing (ὁ χρόνος προίων), so too here it describes how the Spirit progresses in consubstantial unity with the Father and the Son. It does not describe a causal relation, since the Spirit is not caused by the divine substance in any sense.

If St. Cyril was talking about a procession outside the Godhead, he wouldn't use essence. Proeisi and proion signify a relative procession.

Again, that is inaccurate. If the verb signified a relative procession, then the Spirit would have a relation with the divine substance rather than a relation with the hypostases of the Father and the Son.


This relative procession doesn't make the Son Aitia, Cavaradossi, but it is eternal. That is the only way to reconcile the 2 Traditions, Cavaradossi. If we say Spirit proceeds from the Son, we should translate that by proeisi, to make clear it is relative; but to say, Spirit proceeds from Father through the Son, that is rendered ekporeumenon itself.

You seem hopelessly confused both as to what the Greek position on the filioque is, and the meaning of certain terms in Greek. I have not denied any sort of eternal relation here. The question is whether the Son has an eternal relation with the Spirit with respect to cause (κατ' αἰτίαν), which simply is not how the Greek Fathers approached this issue.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 05:10:18 PM by Cavaradossi »
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,973
well written, are you a traditional catholic?

Unfortunately, it is based on badly mangled quotations.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline recent convert

  • Orthodox Chrisitan
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,276
  • St.David of Wales pray for us
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
“It is enough for the Christian to believe that the only cause of all created things, whether heavenly or earthly, whether visible or invisible, is the goodness of the Creator, the one true God; and nothing exists but Himself that does not derive its existence from Him; and that He is the Trinity- to wit, the Father, and the Son begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the same Father,but one and the same Spirit of Father and Son.”   St. Augustine, The Enchiridion On Faith, Hope, and Love. Chapter 9.   
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 05:20:35 PM by recent convert »
Antiochian OC NA

Beware the wrath of the guardians of "love."

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
To briefly address some of the questions asked.

Tsimis, well, I assure you it is Catholic doctrine to say the Word and the Spirit originate from the Father; the one by generation and the other by spiration. The question is, how are the Word and the Spirit related to and distinguished from each other? We say the Spiration/Procession of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Word; this is what is signified by ekporeumenon. And so the Spirit is distinguished from the Son in that the Spirit is through the Son but the Son is not through the Spirit.

This excerpt from Florence should be helpful in clarifying the expression one spiration,
Quote
"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. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind."

Cavaradossi, I am amazed anyone can question or deny ekporeumenon refers to one eternal spiration. The NC creed said "ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon" and St. Tarasius, in developing this symbol, rendered it, "ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon". Everyone can see St. Tarasius is saying ekporeuomenon itself is mediated through the Word. Indeed, the Catholic-Orthodox scholars translated St. Tarasius formula as "Who takes His origin from the Father through the Word". That answers your first objection about one spiration, there is only one spiration because there is only one Spirit, the same Spirit Who originates in the Father is eternally in and hypostatically through the Son.

There are many other Eastern authorities that call the Word the mediator, middle term, median etc between the Father and His Spirit. We will take 3 that were mentioned on this thread.

1. St. Maximus and St. Damascene: both of these say the Father is the sole unoriginate cause, i.e. aitia. They do not mean what Blachernae claims they means, this is seen easily from 2 texts. St. Maximus - from the study's translation and transliteration. "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)". Can you see it? The Holy Spirit in His Being comes from the Father through the Only Begotten. St. Maximus says this does not make the Son the Aitia, because Aitia means Unoriginate Cause, Arche Anarchos. That is why we call the Father principle without principle and fount of divinity even in the west. This statement of St. Maximus means it is not His grace only that comes through the Son, but even His divine hypostasis. This, in fact, is what distinguishes the Persons in eternity, otherwise Son and Spirit would be a single person, without an eternal hypostatic relationshiop between them. Blachernae was wrong and Patriarch +John Bekkus was right.

In Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, 1:12 St. Damascene says the Father is "through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit". St. Damascene is calling "production" what we call spiration. The sense is, by way of analogy, a fruit is produced by a tree on its branch and through its branch. This is the same sense in which we say tree and branch are one principle of the fruit, not two, and sunlight one principle of heat, a river and its stream one principle of a fountain etc

2. St. Cyril: St. Cyril uses proeisi to signify the procession, ""The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiwdwV) in it and from it". Can we not see that St. Cyril is speaking about a relative procession that is still in the order of substance/essence? That is why St. Maximus also uses the term proeisi to translate procession from the Son, and makes clear after this that "it shows forth the unity and identity of the essence". If St. Cyril was talking about a procession outside the Godhead, he wouldn't use essence. Proeisi and proion signify a relative procession. This relative procession doesn't make the Son Aitia, Cavaradossi, but it is eternal. That is the only way to reconcile the 2 Traditions, Cavaradossi. If we say Spirit proceeds from the Son, we should translate that by proeisi, to make clear it is relative; but to say, Spirit proceeds from Father through the Son, that is rendered ekporeumenon itself.

3 western authorities. In the west, as the study notes, the dogma of the Filioque was found useful against Arianism, in 589, 3rd council of Toledo. This shows the west understood Filioque as eternal spiration. St. Ambrose uses it against Macedonians, which reiterates the same point. The Spirit is declared to be Consubstantial from the Father and the Son by proceeding from Them. St. Leo against Sabelianism, which shows the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the Persons of the Father and the Son; the Three Persons are thereby distinct. St. Maximus and St. Damascene, like St. Cyril and St. Tarasius, express that the Spirit has His ekporeusis/spiration from the Father through the Son.
well written, are you a traditional catholic?

At least he arranges his cribbing nicely, unlike your data dumps mid-thread.
you should be more concerned with having the true faith then with my arrangements and data dumps

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
“It is enough for the Christian to believe that the only cause of all created things, whether heavenly or earthly, whether visible or invisible, is the goodness of the Creator, the one true God; and nothing exists but Himself that does not derive its existence from Him; and that He is the Trinity- to wit, the Father, and the Son begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the same Father,but one and the same Spirit of Father and Son.”   St. Augustine, The Enchiridion On Faith, Hope, and Love. Chapter 9.

Augustine

"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
well written, are you a traditional catholic?

Unfortunately, it is based on badly mangled quotations.
they are just quotations you can not handle as it contradicts your faith...so you call them mangled in your desperation

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
well written, are you a traditional catholic?

Unfortunately, it is based on badly mangled quotations.
they are just quotations you can not handle as it contradicts your faith...so you call them mangled in your desperation

Did you read the post where he laid out some reasons to think them mangled?
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
you should be more concerned with having the true faith then with my arrangements and data dumps

I don't know, Sede. Last time I talked to you, the True Faith had left the earth since the '60s, so I guess I'd be wasting my time.
"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 Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,973
well written, are you a traditional catholic?

Unfortunately, it is based on badly mangled quotations.
they are just quotations you can not handle as it contradicts your faith...so you call them mangled in your desperation
I actually gave the original citations in the original Greek, translated them, and explained the meaning and etymology of several key terms. Perhaps it is you who cannot handle the truth.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline recent convert

  • Orthodox Chrisitan
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,276
  • St.David of Wales pray for us
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
“It is enough for the Christian to believe that the only cause of all created things, whether heavenly or earthly, whether visible or invisible, is the goodness of the Creator, the one true God; and nothing exists but Himself that does not derive its existence from Him; and that He is the Trinity- to wit, the Father, and the Son begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the same Father,but one and the same Spirit of Father and Son.”   St. Augustine, The Enchiridion On Faith, Hope, and Love. Chapter 9.

Augustine

"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

I believe St Augustine speaks of the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father to be confessed in faith. I believe the other examples you cite apply to the Father and the Son sending the Spirit as an act of divine love for our salvation. I believe this is akin to the Incarnation another act of diviine love. I post this in all respect.
Antiochian OC NA

Beware the wrath of the guardians of "love."

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,879
well written, are you a traditional catholic?

Unfortunately, it is based on badly mangled quotations.
they are just quotations you can not handle as it contradicts your faith...so you call them mangled in your desperation
Sedevacantist,

My purpose as a section moderator is to facilitate healthy, productive discussion on this, our discussion forum. Cavaradossi has very patiently and thoroughly responded point-by-point to a post you reference. You are, of course, free to disagree with him, (in fact, I welcome disagreement) but in the spirit of a discussion forum this must be of some substance.

When you post as you have above, you are not advancing discussion. You have two options: to refrain from posting if you feel so inclined, or to respond in a substantive way. Being needlessly obstructive and combative is not an option.

I don't want to have to issue a kindly reminder again. In fact, I won't.

Thank you,
Antonis
Section Moderator


« Last Edit: March 25, 2018, 03:44:25 PM by Antonis »
"Verily they that seek Thee, Lord, and keep the canons of Thy Holy Church shall never want any good thing.”
St. John the Merciful

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4