PART II

The Sacred Filioque: The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I do apologize for taking so long to get this post up. My studies have just been driving me insane lately. Anyways, I hope the following entry will be of some use to the readers. Let me know what you all think, and whether not this info has helped you all on your journies. God bless you all.

The Meaning of Procession in Greek Tradition

Greek Tradition emphasizes the Father’s monarchy. The Father’s Monarchy is that of being the “uncaused cause” the “first cause” (the Greek “ekporeuesthai”) which makes the Father the source of the entire Trinity. As said earlier, both Latin and Greek Fathers professed the Father’s monarchy. The only difference is that the Latin Fathers emphasized the Father’s union with the Son when relating to the Spirit (the Greek “proion”), and the Greek Fathers emphasized the Father’s monarchy when relating to the Spirit (the Greek “ekporeuesthai”).

These two different emphasises are perfectly orthodox expressions of Catholic faith. The reader may wonder, where then is the issue? The issue is the “translation” of the word “procession”.  The English word “procession” comes from the Latin word “processo”. The confusion is over what the Latin word “processo” translates into, in Greek. As stated earlier, the correct translation of “processo” is the Greek “proion”. When Greek Fathers discuss the “proion” of the Holy Spirit, they use “filioque”. Greek Fathers use “and the Son” when referring to the “proion”. The massive confusion over “processo” is when the Latin Church made an error when translating the Creed of the Ecumenical Council of Nycea into Latin.

The error the Latin Church made was in translating the Greek “ekporeuesthai” as “processo”.((((It should be noted by all readers, that the Greek Church had TWO different words to use when speaking of the Spirit’s relationships (proion & ekporeuesthai), the Latin Church only had ONE word to describe the Spirit’s relationships (processo) and that ONE word did not mean “ekporeuesthai”..)))) The Latin Church at that time, was unaware of the connotations of “ekporeuesthai”. The Latin Church always understood and professed the Father’s Monarchy (as can be seen in the Latin Fathers), but the Latin Church did not have a unique word for that Monarchy, instead the Latin Church used expressions like “principally from the Father” or “firstly from the Father” etc when talking of the Monarchy (principle with out principle). Aside from this, the Latin Church did NOT use the “processo” the same way the Greeks used “ekporeuesthai”. In other words, the “processo” (procession) did not imply the Father’s unique role. The Latin Church ALWAYS used the “processo” the same way the Greek Church used “proion”. When the error was made, a FALSE equivalence was made between “processo” and “ekporeuesthai”. Maximus the Confessor and Patriarch of Constantinople in his letter explained and defended Pope Martin’s teaching of the Filioque. In his letter, which I have posted in the last post, Patriarch Maximus was pointing out that the Latins were not referring to “ekporeuesthai” when speaking of “processo”, he points out that the Latins “meant” “proion” when speaking of Filioque. Again, when speaking of “proion” Eastern Fathers also used “and the Son” (filioque).

Filioque was first inserted into the Nycean creed by Spanish Bishops. When these Bishops inserted Filioque to combat Arianism they wanted to fortify the Divinity of Christ, by professing the orthodox Catholic dogma (East and West) that the Holy Spirit had a common origin (proion) in the Father and the Son. It made sense for the Latin West to emphasize the Son’s union with the Father in relationship to the Holy Spirit when fighting Western Arianism (heretics who rejected the Divinity of Christ). The Latin Church NEVER meant to challenge the Father’s Monarchy. Again, the Latin Fathers draw a distinction in talking of the Father’s role in the Holy Spirit’s procession (the Father is the ultimate cause).

As mentioned in the first post, Pope Leo III argued against the formal insertion of Filioque into the Creed, because this Pope was aware of the Creed’s Greek meaning. For this reason, Pope Leo III knew that inserting the filioque could create schism with the Eastern Church because of the Greek connotations.

The Greek Church translates “ekporeuesthai” as procession (processo). As stated earlier “ekporeuesthai” means the Father’s unique role as the ultimate origin of the Spirit and the Trinity itself. For this reason, when the Latin Church uses “and the Son” (Filioque) when speaking of procession, the Greek Church feels uncomfortable.

In short, when the Greek Church says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “through the Son” the Greek are referring to the “ekporeuesthai”. It should also be noted that the original Greek position uses “through the Son” to refer to the Holy Spirit’s personal origin which is manifested “through the Son”. Since Greek procession refers to “ekporeuesthai”, the Greek Church does not apply  filioque (and the Son) to this form of procession. It is important to note that the Catholic Church OMITS and FORBIDS filioque from the Eastern Catholic Churches that use the Nycean Creed in the original Greek. The Catholic Church omits filioque in the Greek Creeds, because Catholicism does not apply filioque when speaking of the Father’s unique role. Again, Filioque only refers to “proion”. (which Greeks also applied Filioque to)

Filioque is restricted to Latin version of the Creed (now translated in the vernacular) with Latin meaning. Filioque is not permitted in the Greek version of the Creed, used in various Eastern Catholic Churches.

The bottom line here is that when the Latin Church uses “procession”, the Latin Church intends the meaning of “proion”. The confusion between the West and the East, is that they both use the word “procession” to mean different things. Hence Patriarch Maximus’s advise about understanding the Latin Tradition with Latin thought (not Greek thought).

The Greek Fathers use “Through the Son” when talking of “ekporeuesthai”

Origen (A.D. 229): "We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6) (emphasis mine)

Maximus the Confessor and Patriarch of Constantinople (A.D. 254): "By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63).

St. Basil The Great (A.D. 365): "Even if the Holy Spirit is third in diginity and order, why need he be third also in nature? For that he is second to the Son, having his being from him and receiving from him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on him, pious tradition recounts; but that his nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said." Basil, Against Eunomius, 3, PG 29:653B)… (A.D. 375): "Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45)……"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).

Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 375): "If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer;--that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another;-by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father." (To Ablabius-There are not three gods)… (A.D. 377): "For neither did the Universal God make the universe 'through the Son,' as needing any help, nor does the Only-begotten God work all things 'by the Holy Spirit,' as having a power that comes short of His design; but the fountain of power is the Father, and the power of the Father is the Son, and the spirit of that power is the Holy Spirit." (Against Macedonians, 13)…(A.D. 382): "[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1).

“And the Son” = “Through the Son”, just two different Emphasises

Greek Forumla “Through the Son” refers to “ekporeuesthai” and is emphasizing the Father’s monarchy. The Latin formula refers to the “proion” and emphasizes the Father’s union with the Son in the relationship of the Holy Spirit.  Both Traditions stand in agreement with the Father’s monarchy, and the Holy Spirit’s common origin (proion) in both. For this reason, “through the Son” (when speaking of the Monarchy) is equivalent to the Latin  “and the Son” (when speaking of “proion”). Both Traditions are describing the same Trinitarian realities with different emphasises.

St. Basil The Great (A.D. 365):  “For that he is second to the Son, having his being from him and receiving from him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on him…..Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father… the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit…. there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy..” (ibid., 18)

Latin Formula “and the Son” refers to “proion” and is emphasizing the union of the Trinity.

St. Augustine (A. D. 408): “….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)… the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too...” (The Trinity, XV:17,29)

Both Traditions express the same Trinitarian Reality, but with two distinct emphasises and perspectives. Both emphasises are orthodox. The reality that both of these Traditions are describing is that there is one Being that is God, who manifests His Divine Nature in 3 distinct Persons. That these Persons are distinct through their Personal relationships with one another, and that these relationships refer to Personal origin. They also teach that the Father is the source of the entire Trinity, as the uncaused cause, He alone is with out origin, and from He alone do the other Persons come. These Traditions teach that there is 3 orders to the Persons, directly referring to their distinction, the Father (1^st) is distinct as the ultimate cause, the Son (2^nd) is distinct second by becoming the direct result of the Father’s cause, and that the Holy Spirit (3^rd) is distinct after the Son, and that through the Son, the Spirit was caused by the Father. The Person the Holy Spirit is the one Spirit of the Father and the Son, forever the bond of love of the Trinity.

The Photian Heresy “From the Father Alone”

Photias is a 9^th century Patriarch of Constantinople who advocated a radical position (which was new in the East) in opposition to Filioque. Patriach Photias fell into heresy and contradiction in his passionate effort to oppose Filioque. The Photian view of Procession, is one that completely denies the Son’s participation in the Cause of the Spirit. To Photias (and his followers) the only participation the Son may of had, was one of the communication of Divine Energies to the Spirit (in the temporal sense, not eternal). Photias is quite clear, that the Son does NOT participate in the Procession (or origin) or cause of the Holy Spirit at all. “Through the Son” according to Photias refers only to the Divine Energies in the temporal sense, not Personal origin, not cause, and nothing eternal. It is also important for me to add that the Photian view of the Trinity rests on Personal Distinction through “properties”, not Personal relationships of origin.

Photias denies the Son’s participation in the Spirit’s procession, purely because Photias believed the ability to spirate the Spirit was a unique property of the Father. To claim the Son participates, is to claim the Son shares in the Father’s unique property, thus turning the Son into another Father. In so doing, two separate sources of the Trinity are created, and thus, two sources of Divinity, and ultimately Polytheism.

The Photian position, single handedly contradicts all the Fathers. His rejection of Filioque causes him to contradict all Latin Fathers, and thus the entire Western Church. His rejection of the Son’s participation in the cause of the Holy Spirit causes him to contradict all the Greek Fathers, and the entire Eastern Church. His claim of Personal distinction within the Trinity resting on properties “instead” of Personal relationship of origin contradicts the whole of Sacred Tradition. His restriction of “through the Son” to a temporal communication of Divine Energies is a out right break with Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils.

Why? Let’s revisit everything Photias has taught, and evaluate it with the Fathers, inparticular, the Greek Fathers.

FIRST: Photias teaches that the Personal Distinction within the Trinity rests on Personal
properties not on Personal relationship of Origin. St. Gregory of Nyssa seems to teach differently:

Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 375): “If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer;--that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another-by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father." (To Ablabius-There are not three gods)

According to St. Gregory, Personal Distinction rests on the relationship of cause (origin). In other words, each Person in the Trinity is distinct only through their relationship with one another through origin. For this reason, it is a Theological necessity for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Son in addition to the Father. The Son and the Spirit both have a Personal Relationship (of origin) with the Father, but the Son and the Spirit also must have a Personal relationship (of origin) with each other as well, or they fail to be distinct from one another. In other words, The Holy Spirit, and the Son can only be different Persons IF they have a Personal relationship with each other (origin) that causes distinction. This means, one person must have an origin in another. The Son is 2^nd in order, the Spirit is 3^rd, for this reason, the Spirit is only distinct after the Son, therefore, the Spirit has an origin in the Son, which creates the Personal relationship that gives distinction.

In short, one can see quite quickly, if Photias wants to deny the Spirit’s procession from the Son, Photias must deny that Personal distinction is manifested through Personal relationship of origin. He does this by claiming distinction rests on properties. His position is of course, inconsistent with the ancient Church (East and West).

SECOND: The Photian view of procession claims that “through the Son” refers to the temporal communication of Divine Energies NOT the Son’s participation the Spirit’s origin. St. Basil, St. Gregory, and St. Augustine teach otherwise:

St. Basil The Great (A.D. 365): "Even if the Holy Spirit is third in diginity and order, why need he be third also in nature? For that he is second to the Son, having his being from him and receiving from him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on him, pious tradition recounts; but that his nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said." Basil, Against Eunomius, 3, PG 29:653B)… (A.D. 375): "Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45)……"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).

Gregory of Nyssa  (A.D. 382): “….Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly..” (Against Eunomius 1)

St. Augustine (A.D. 408): "And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, is neither of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both." (On the Trinity, ,XV:17,27).

THIRD: On top of this, the Second Ecumenical Council of Nycea in the 8^th Century (just before Photias) infallibily taught “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” went on to declare Theological continuity and consistency with Latin Fathers who dogmatically professed and taught the Filioque.

Council of Nicea II (A.D. 787): "[I]n the Holy Spirit, Lord and giver of Life, proceeding from the Father through the Son."…… “We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers . . . Hilary . . . Ambrose . . . Augustine . . . Leo and their writings on the true faith [listing just the Western Fathers mentioned by the Council, all of whom professed “filioque” as orthodox Catholic Dogma, the Council is recognizing them as teaching the “tueu faith”]. (Acta, Session I.)

I did not include them in the previous citation, but St. Basil, and St Gregory were also named among the Holy Fathers that Nycea II declared “orthodox in their writings” of the “true faith”. St. Basil and St. Gregory both understood “through the Son” as the Son’s participation the cause (personal origin) of the Holy Spirit.

The bottom line with Photias, is that he contradicts both Latin and Greek Fathers on Personal distinction of the Trinity resting on relationships of origin, the Son’s participation in the Spirit’s cause/origin, “through the Son” in the eternal sense and in sense of personal origin, and the Filioque of the “proion” (the Latin meaning of procession). Photias contradicts Ecumenical Councils who defined the Spirit’s Procession (in reference to “ekporeuesthai”) “through the Son” and declared the teachings of Latin Fathers who taught Filioque as “orthodox” along with Greek Fathers who taught “through the Son” in the sense of eternal origin.

In other words, Photias was wrong.

For, according to the Photian assumption, the Holy Spirit only proceeds ‘through the Son’ in a temporal sense (i.e., Christ’s pouring forth of the Spirit upon the Church) and not an eternal sense. And, if this is the case, then one must conclude that Jesus’ conception in the womb of the Blessed Theotokos, and His Baptism in the Jordan, and His bodily Resurrection –all of which were brought about through the Holy Spirit –were merely acts of the "energy" of God, and so not manifestations of the eternal Sonship of God in the context of the Divine essence, but purely-temporal, "adoptive" acts, in which the Father made Christ into His Son in ways that are totally distinct and separate from the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. This must be the case if the procession of the Spirit "through the Son" is not an eternal reality, but merely a temporal reality. No Church Father East or West would embrace the madness of Photias.

Photias and his heretical view of procession only exist as amo for Eastern Orthodox leaders hostile to union with Rome and who at all costs seek to justify schism, even at the cost of contradicting Sacred Tradition, Councils, and Scripture.

In Conclusion

It is important to remember that the “Catholic Church” of the Ecumenical Councils is “catholic” because it is universal, incorporating all Traditions (Latin, Greek, Coptic, etc). This means that the Greek Tradition and it’s formulas ARE NOT the judges of Apostolic Faith. Greek Tradition is one perspective. Greek Tradition is not superior to Latin Tradition can does not have the right evaluate Latin Tradition in light of their own Greek Tradition (As St. Maximus Patriarch of Constantinople has said). The Ancient Church teaches that authentic Apostolic Tradition (regardless of Liturgical Church) is maintained through the Roman Church. All Churches must be in agreement with the “conclusions” (not the emphasis) of the Roman Church (the Papacy). This means the Papacy (not Liturgical Latin Tradition itself) is the judge of authentic Apostolic Tradition. “that church (Roman Church) which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin (from Peter), all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (St Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). In short, It is the role of the Roman Church, the Papacy, to be the supreme judge of Apostolic Tradition, that is, the Judge of all Traditions.

Latin and Greek Traditions describe the same Trinitarian reality, but each with their own emphasis. When Latin Fathers taught Filioque, they referred and intended the meaning of the Greek “proion”.  Greek Fathers also taught Filioque when referring to the “proion”. The Greek formula “through the Son” refers to the Son’s participation in the cause of the Personal origin of the Holy Spirit (according Sts. Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and others). According to pre-Photian Greek Fathers, “through the Son” always referred to an eternal reality of Divine sonship. Personal distinction within the Trinity is centered on Personal relationship of origin. The Second Ecumenical Council of Nycea declared the Latin Fathers (who taught Filioque), their theological writings, and teachings on the Faith to be “orthodox”. Nycea II also declared the Greek Fathers who taught “through the Son” in reference to the Son’s participation in the cause of the Holy Spirit as the “true faith”. From the perspective of the Roman Church, this insertion of the Filioque into the Creed was just clarification of the Son’s union with the Father as well as a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit, which further defended His divinity against the Arian Heretics.

In Short, Photias was heretical, and the Traditional Greek view of the Trinity is the same as the Latin view but with different emphasis. Filioque is not a valid reason for Schism.

Eastern Orthodox leaders and Filioque:

Bishop Kalistos: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

There are also a large number of “agreed” statements and so forth. Quotations are rather difficult to obtain, especially inlight of all the anti-catholic literature out there drowning out the legitament progress in unity. Anywho, books written around this issue do reveal an over all movement of Eastern Orthodox hierarchy to acceptance of filioque. We can only pray that our Eastern Cousins will return to the Chair Peter and once again stand with us in pure adoration of the allpowerful Father, Son, and holy Spirit. One God, One faith, One Church.

So……. The Sacred Filioque is not heretical, but orthodox.

Vivat Iesus Christi

PART I

The Sacred Filioque: The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Meaning of Procession in Latin Tradition

Maximus the Confessor and Patriarch of Constantinople (this letter is ca. A.D. 254):  “Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them, says: 'The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son'. The other deals with the divine incarnation. "With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence... "They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things of which it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism). They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced. "In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them [the 'also from the son'] in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodic letter] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this." (defense of Pope Martin's teaching on the Filioque)

The “Catholic” Church of the creeds, one universal Church that includes a variety of Church Traditions, the largest being Latin and Greek, this union of multiple Traditions is what makes the Church “Catholic” by the very meaning of the word. Each Tradition is valid in perspective and approach to the reality Theology expressed through language and ritual, as long as it is in union with the teaching office of the Papacy, the judge of all Apostolic Tradition.  It is also important to note, that the language that a given Tradition uses to express a Theological reality, must be understood with the thought process of that given Tradition.

In other words, St. Maximus points out that we can not evaluate one Tradition by using another Tradition, because our languages express our thoughts differently, and each Tradition has a different language and thought expression. Each Tradition must be evaluated by it’s own language.

The Latin Tradition when approaching the Trinity, emphasizes the Trinitarian unity of the Persons. In other words, the Latin Church emphasizes the “oneness” of God by emphasizing the unity of the Trinity itself. The Latin Church does through language that identifies the union of the persons the Father and the Son which is revealed through their bond of love, which is the person the Holy Spirit. In so doing, the Holy Spirit becomes the very reality of Trinitarian unity, because He is the one Spirit of the Father and the Son.

In all of this “oneness” the reality of persons must be made clear though distinction of each member of the Trinity. This distinction refers to relationship. Personhood in the Trinity is revealed through Personal relationships. These relationships refer to “origin”, or principle or cause etc. (it is important to note, that these distinctions of origin, exist outside of time, in other words, they exist in eternity, the everlasting present, and for this reason, there was never a time that the Trinity was not, or will not, the Trinity is always.)

Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 375): "If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer;--that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another;-by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father." (To Ablabius-There are not three gods)

St. Gregory of Nyssa is a Greek Church Father which is the reason for his use of the word “cause” which is a Greek terminology. It is important to note, that the Latin “principle” is not as rigid in meaning as “cause”. Hence St. Thomas Aquinas and His linguistic use of “principle” at the Reunion councils. That being said, the Greek “cause” has a strong association with “created” (as in time and matter), while the Latin “principle” does not. In either case, both “cause” and “principle” can not capture the full reality that occurs in the Trinity. This should not be a surprise. The significant point here is, St. Gregory is making reference to the “first cause”, (first principle).

What we see in St. Gregory (a Greek Church Father) is a distinction in causes (principles). There is only one “true” cause, which is the Father, the uncaused, cause (principle without principle). Then there is a “one of the cause”, this is the Son. Then, the Son participates with the “first cause” in the Personal distinction of the Spirit. The Spirit is only “distinct” after the Son. The Holy Spirit is caused by the Father through the Son. The Son is instrumental in the Father’s causation of the Spirit. This makes the Son a “secondary cause” or a “caused cause” (principle with principle) for the Spirit and the Father the “first cause” or “uncaused cause” (principle without principle) of the Spirit. This means, the Father is the first cause (first principle of origin) of the Spirit, and the Son, the second cause (second principle of origin) of the Spirit. The Son is only an origin of the Spirit, by the Father’s action through the Son. This means, as St. Gregory points out, that the Son only participates in the Spirit’s cause (origin) by the Father’s cause being manifested through the Son (making the Son, the image of the Father). The Father’s monarchy is just that He and He alone is the “first cause” and the “uncaused cause” which makes Him alone the source of the entire Trinity. The Spirit’s origin is found in the Father’s cause being manifested through the Son which automatically makes the Son secondary cause in the Spirit’s distinction (personal origin). The union of the Father (uncaused cause) and the Son (caused cause) is referred to as the “common origin” (the Greek “proion”). This common origin of the Spirit in the union of the Father and the Son (which occurs after the Son’s Personal distinction) is not equivalent to the Spirit’s ultimate source in the Father (the Greek “ekporeuesthai”), because the “ekporeuesthai” directly refers to the uncaused cause and source of the entire Trinity, while the “proion” is more broad and refers to the union of the Father and the Son.

This leads us to the next part. The Latin use of the word “procession” (“processo”) is equivalent to the Greek use and meaning of “proion”. According to the Greek Fathers, “proion” refers to the Spirit’s common relationship to the Father and Son and for this reason, the “proion” is applied to both the Father and the Son in references to the Spirit’s common origin. I have used this quote from St. Gregory, because he is a Greek father that does a good job describing the reality of cause, and it’s distinction between persons. His writing is a close Greek similarity to the Latin understanding of principles in God, and the Son’s participation in them. In other words, St. Gregory (while emphasizing the Father’s monarchy) is touching on the same reality that the Latin Church is expressing, but the Latin Church does it with an emphasis on the union of the Father and the Son, instead of emphasizing the Father’s monarchy.

The Father is still Monarch, because all of this depends on the Father’s actions. The Spirit’s origin in the Father is not the same as the Spirit’s origin in the Son. The Double procession is referring to how the Father unites to the Son in making the Spirit distinct from the Son. In so doing, the personal relationship of origin (which necessary for personal distinction) exists between the Son and Spirit, this makes the Son and the Spirit distinct from each other. If the Spirit did not have an origin in the Son (a secondary one) then the Spirit would not personally relate with the Son, this would cause the Son and the Spirit would no longer be distinct from each other, and theologically speaking, they would dissolve into one person.

The Latin Tradition wanted to emphasize the reality of the common origin of the Spirit, which is His procession (proion) from the Father and the Son. This is because, the emphasis of the common origin is an automatic emphasis on Trinitarian unity and Personal Distinction, which is an automatic emphasis on God’s oneness. The Latin emphasis also provided the Church with a clear understanding of the Spirit’s relationship with the Son, which further defended the Divinity of Jesus, in particular His Divine Sonship.

When reading the Latin Fathers one must remember the Latin use and meaning of procession (proion) refers to the procession of the common origin of the Holy Spirit from the unified principle of the Father and the Son. St. Augustine, and others, do draw the distinction of the Holy Spirit’s ultimate source in the Father, by pointing out that the Spirit proceeds firstly, and principally from the Father. The Son is a secondary, and instrumental of the Father.

The Latin Fathers and Filioque

St. Hilary of Poitiers (A.D. 357): "Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son." (On the Trinity, 2:29).

St. Ambrose of Milan (A.D. 381): "Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152)….."The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120) (emphasis mine).

St. Augustine (A. D. 408): "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)……"[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)… "And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, is neither of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both." (Augustine, On the Trinity,XV:17,27)…….(A.D. 416): "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. 428): "Call the Father the author, because the Son is from him, though he is not from the Son and because the Holy Spirit proceeds from him and from the Son. By giving birth to the Son, he gave it to him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him as well………The Son comes from the Father; the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. The former is born; the latter proceeds. Hence, the former is the Son of the Father from whom he is born, but the latter is the Spirit of both because he proceeds from both. When the Son spoke of the Spirit, he said, 'He proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26)', because the Father is the author of his procession. The Father begot a Son and, by begetting him, gave it to him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him as well. If he did not proceed from him, he would not say to his disciples, 'Receive the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:22)', and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeeds from him and showed outwardly by blowing what he was giving inwardly by breathing. If he were born, he would be born not from the Father alone or from the Son alone, but from both of them; he would beyond any doubt be the son of both of them. But because he is in no sense the son of both of them, it was necessary that he not be born from both. He is, therefore, the Spirit of both, by proceeding from both." (Against Maximinus, 2:5)

Fulgence of Ruspe (A.D. 447): "Believe most firmly, and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles." (Rule of Faith, 11)

Eucherius of Lyons (A.D. 454): "The Holy Spirit is neither generate nor ingenerate, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say of Both." (Spic. Rom., 5:93)

Pope St. Leo the Great (A.D. 461): "And while in the property of each Person the Father is one, the Son is another, and the Holy Ghost is another, yet the Godhead is not distinct and different; for whilst the Son is the Only begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, not in the way that every creature is the creature of the Father and the Son, but as living and having power with Both, and eternally subsisting of That Which is the Father and the Son."( Sermon 75)

The Greek Fathers and Filioque, the shared “proion”

St. Basil The Great (A.D. 365): "Even if the Holy Spirit is third in diginity and order, why need he be third also in nature? For that he is second to the Son, having his being from him and receiving from him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on him, pious tradition recounts; but that his nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said." Basil, Against Eunomius, 3, PG 29:653B)… (A.D. 375): "Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45)……"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).

Epiphanius  (A.D. 374): "The Spirit is God, from the Father and the Son.….[N]either does any know the Spirit but the Father and the Son, the Persons from whom he proceeds and from whom He receives……The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes forth from the Father and the Son..."(The Man Well-Anchored, 9, 11, and 75).

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

St. Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 425): "Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it." (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, Thesis 34)…. ( A.D. 427): "Inasmuch as the Son is God and is by nature from God, the Spirit is His own, and is both in Him and from Him."( In Joel, 2:28)……… (A.D. 430):  “For he [the Holy Spirit] is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is the Truth, and he is poured forth from him [the Son] just as he is also from God the Father.” (To Nestorius, Epistle 17)

Scripture Teaches Filioque

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father: Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son: (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19),

The Son sends the Holy Spirit: (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son: (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; this is Procession.

The Father is the source of love, (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8,16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). St Augustine has saw the Holy Spirit, whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), the love as the eternal Gift of the Father to the Son (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6).

The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, who is the Gift of love. The Holy Spirit is instrumental in the Father's love for His Son, the eternal Divine Sonship. The Father sends his Son (Gal 4:4) when Mary conceives him through the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 1:35). The Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus at Baptism (cf. Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:33). Jesus returns from the wild "full of the Holy Spirit" (Lk 4:1). Then he begins his ministry "in the power of the Spirit" (Lk 4:14). He is filled with joy in the Spirit, blessing the Father for his gracious will (cf. Lk 10:21). He chooses his Apostles "through the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:2). He casts out demons by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He offers himself to the Father "through the eternal Spirit" (Heb 9:14). On the Cross he "commits his Spirit" into the Father's hands (Lk 23:46). "In the Spirit" he descended to the dead (cf. 1 Pt 3:19), and by the Spirit he was raised from the dead (cf. Rom 8:11) and "designated Son of God in power" (Rom 1:4).¹² This role of the Holy Spirit in the intamate details of the human existence of the Son of God made man clearly comes from an eternal  relationship manifested in the Trinity, through which the Holy Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of Love, characterizes this relation between the Father, as source of love, and the Son.

The Greek view of the Holy Spirit as the Bond and Love between Father and Son

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca A.D. 370): “The Holy Spirit is "the bond of the Trinity." -, Ancoratus, 7 (PG 43:23B).

St. Gregory Palamas (ca. 1320):  “The Spirit of the Word is like a love of the Father for the mysteriously begotten Word, and it is the same love that the beloved Word and Son of the Father has for the one who begot him. That love comes from the Father at the same time as it is with the Son and it naturally rests on the Son.” Chapters, 36 (PG 150:1144D-1145A).

Eastern Orthodox Theologian and Priest Sergius Bulgakov (early 20^th century): “If God, in the Holy Trinity, is Love, then the Holy Spirit is Love of that love.” La Paraclet (1946), p. 74.

Eastern Orthodox Theologian Paul Evdokimov, (20^th century):  "is in the middle of the Father and the Son. He is the one who brings about the communion between the two. He is the communion, the love between the Father and the Son. That is clearly shown by the remarkable fact that the movement comes from him. It is in his breath that the Father moves into the Son, that the Son receives his Father and that the word resounds." -, "L'icone", La vie spirituelle, 82 (1956), pp. 24ff. [Commenting on St. Andrei Rublev's Icon of the Trinity]

This entry and subject is not finished. I will be posting additional Parts over the course of the next few days. I have broken up this entry into these parts to make it easier on the readers. I pray that the readers will read all of the PArts to take the context of the entire message.

TO BE CONTINUED

Vivat Iesus Christi

Almost done

Coming Soon

I have been planning on making a post here in regards to the Filioque also known as the Holy Spirit's Procession from the Father and the Son. A concept that is appearing to be gaining acceptance amongst the Eastern Orthodox hierarchy. I have studied this issue for the past couple of months and have gone in into a number of debates. I accumulated some interesting insite into the subject. I am in particular attracted to the writtings of Augustine, Aquinas, Cyril, and Basil.  There are many more but these few have captured my attention. Anyways, I plan to make this a rather large post, and to include a brief evaluation of the medieval Photian heresy that is currently being used to validate the Eastern Schism. The cimentics involved is mind boggiling. Language can deffinetly a bearier to communication.

Since I plan to make this post useful to the readers, I want to spend the apropriate time. I unfortunately have found myself increasingly busy for truthly the past year. I just wanted to remind the readers and anyone esle, that I have not forgotten, and I will try to make the post as soon as possible. I would be very interested to hear the feedback from that upcoming post, both Western and Eastern perspectives would be of great interest to me. God bless, and so long for now.

Vivat Iesus Christi

"I AM" Brief discussion on why Atheism is Irrational