Thursday, October 16, 2008

On Filioque, Against Mark of Ephesus, et al

Obj. 1: Pope St. Zachary says "the Paraclete Spirit, proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son." Since the Holy Spirit rests in the Son, He does not proceed from the Son.
Ans. 1: The fact that the Holy Spirit abides in the Son does not entail that He does not proceed from the Son, because we also say that the Son abides in the Father, from Whom He proceeds as Only-Begotten [Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 2, ad 4]. The Holy Spirit abides in the Son as the love (Holy Spirit) of the lover (Father) abides in the beloved (Son) [ibid.]. The Holy Spirit abides in the Son with reference to the human nature of the latter, as it is written in Jn 1:33 (Douay Rheims): "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost" [ibid.].
Obj. 2: Pope St. Gregory I the Great Dialogist of Rome says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone [Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople, Mystagogy §87 in PG 102:373C].
Ans. 2: On the contrary, Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (Doctor) says in 595 [Morals on the Book of Job 2:56:92 in PL 75:599A], "The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son." In the Latin from Fr. Jacques-Paul Migne, St. Gregory the Great refers to the Son and says, "quia et ex illo isdem Spiritus per substantiam profertur." It is not just a question of the οἰκονομία (temporal mission), or an eternal manifestation of ενέργεια à la the once-unionist Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot of Constantinople.
Obj. 3: Pope St. Leo III of Rome opposed the addition of Filioque into the Creed [Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit 87].
Ans. 3: St. Leo III told Bl. Charlemagne (January 28) that he agreed with the doctrine of Filioque. But Pope St. Leo III--who omitted Filioque from the Creed for the sake of Church unity and was aware of the sensitivity of the Greeks about their Creed and the nuances of ἐκπορευόμενον vs. προείναι--openly confessed, in letter to all the Eastern Churches, his belief in "the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..."
Obj. 4: St. Justin Martyr the Philosopher of Caesarea says, "As the Son is from the Father, so is the Spirit from the Father." But the Son is from the Father immediately. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not, as the Latins say, from the Father mediately [Mark of Ephesus, 7/1440 Encyclical on False Union and the Filioque].
Ans. 4: We rightly confess with reference to "the persons themselves spirating" that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son," and that, with reference to the spirative power, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son immediately [Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 3, ad 1].

Obj. 5: During the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Pope Adrian I wrote to Patriarch St. Tarasius of Constantinople [PG 102:373D-375] that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
Ans. 5: Adrian I affirmed Filioque in his answer to the Caroline Books. He defended, against the misunderstanding of my ancestor Bl. Charlemagne (1/28), the formula and doctrine of Patriarch St. Tarasios of Constantinople [PL 98:1249-1252], who said at the Seventh Ecumenical Council that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son [Mansi XII:1121D]. He quoted Patristic statements to prove that omitting Filioque need not mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, i.e., that the Father alone spirates the Holy Spirit.
Obj. 6: St. Gregory the Theologian of Nazianzus says [Oratio 34:10 in PG 36:252A], "everything the Father is said to possess, the Son, likewise, possesses except causality." If the Son is distinguished from the with respect to cause, He is neither Father nor producer, and so He is not the cause of the Holy Spirit [Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus, 7/1440 Encyclical On False Union and Filioque].
Ans. 6: Filioque would only infringe on the Monarchy and Cappadocian Principle if it gave the Son the property distinctive of the Father, if it made the Son the unoriginate source of divinity, i.e., gave the Son the notions of innascibility and paternity. Filioque manifestly does no such thing. The Father alone is the source (peghe = πηγή) of divinity and arche anarchos; the Son is not the arche anarchos. That is to say, the Son is not aitia because aitia deals with ekporeusis (origin from the sole principle without principle) but the Son is, together with the Father, the one principium from which the Holy Spirit proceeds because principium is more general and corresponds to processio, which signifies origin in any way at all, as opposed to the restricted term ekporeusis (εκπορευσις). St. Gregory of Nazianzus means that the Father is the sole origin (αρχη, αιτια) of the εκπορευσις of the Spirit, which is not something that Filioque negates. The objection is based on a failure to understand that causa is not exactly the same as aitia and that principium is more general than arche.
Obj. 7: Bishop St. Dionysius the Areopagite of Athens says [PG 3:641D], the "sole fount of the supersubstantial divinity is the Father" [Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus].
Ans. 7: The Filioque deals not with the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father as the sole principle without principle (αιτια and arche anarchos) and source (peghe) of the Godhead (divinity), but "reveals the procession [proienai = προιεναι = processio] of the Holy Spirit in consubstantial communion from the Father and the Son", i.e. the communication of consubstantial divinity "from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit."{1}

{1} Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (9/20/1995): The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit (English translation in L'Osservatore Romano).

The source (i.e., unoriginate fount) of the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the Father alone [Ecumenical Council of Ferrara-Florence], but the Holy Spirit as a Person proceeds ("moves out from") the Father and the Son, but principally from the Father because the Son participates in the eternal motion and is not the source of it. Since the Holy Spirit is eternally a Person and granted He proceeds in some way from the Son, He must proceed as a Person (subsistence), wherefore the subsistence of the Holy Spirit is from the Son [Ecumenical Council of Ferrara-Florence], not as the source, but rather as the notional principle from which He eternally proceeds. The Holy Spirit receives of the Son the being and nature of the Father, which the Son receives as Only-Begotten. So the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son eternally, but the primordial source of His divine Hypostasis is the Father alone.

Says my friend Ghosty from Catholic Answers Forums, the one source of the water (Godhead, divinity) is the spring (Father), and the river (Son) receives the same water and contribution (spirative power) from the spring (Father) without becoming the primordial source (the Father) of the lake (Holy Spirit).
Obj. 8: Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus says [PG 83:1484C], "The Holy Spirit does not gain its existence from the Son or through the Son, but by procession from the Father, we say that It is of the Son since it is co-essential (homoousios)."
Ans. 8: The Nestorian contradicted the teaching of numerous Fathers before him. Theodoret contradicted the Eastern Fathers St. Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neocaesarea, St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (Doctor), St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor), St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor), and St. Epiphanius of Salamis. Theodoret contradicted the Western Fathers St. Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor), St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor), and St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor).
Obj. 9: St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople says [Letter to Marinus of Cyprus in PG 91:136A-B] that the Latins "do not make the Son Cause (Αιτια) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole Cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by εκπορευσις ..." But at the Council of Ferrara-Florence the Latins said [DS 1301-1302], "the Holy Fathers and Doctors say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this understanding that by this is meant that the Son is also, according to the Greeks the cause, and according to the Latins the principle, of subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is also the Father." So the Latins betray St. Maximus and teach against the monarchy of the Father.
Ans. 9: It is a problem of translation; the Latins did not mean "arche." The objection is based on a failure to understand that causa is not exactly the same as aitia and that principium is more general than arche.
Obj. 10: The two great Doctors, the Cappadocian Fathers St. Basil the Great of Caesarea and St. Gregory the Great Theologian of Nazianzus, said that every real divine property must be individual or common to all three Persons of the Trinity. Therefore Filioque is false.
Ans. 10: Besides the fact that St. Basil the Great of Caesarea explicitly affirmed tenets of Filioquism, there is the fact that the brilliant Brandon Watson has clearly demonstrated the compatibility of the Cappadocian Principle and Filioque. Once again, to put it very succinctly, Filioque would only infringe on the Monarchy and Cappadocian Principle if it gave the Son the property distinctive of the Father, if it made the Son the unoriginate source of divinity, i.e., gave the Son the notions of innascibility and paternity. Filioque manifestly does no such thing.Obj. 11: Since the Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father, it is superfluous to claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son [Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit].
Ans. 11: Because the Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father, it is necessary, and not at all superfluous, to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. St. Thomas Aquinas says [ST 1:36:2:6a] that the power of the Father and the Son is numerically one and whatever is from the Father has to also be from the Son unless it is opposed to filiation, for the reason that the Son does not proceed from Himself but rather proceeds from the Father.
Obj. 12: Christ said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [Jn 15:26]; if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well, the Son Himself would have surely said so. You Filioquists make Christ a teller of half-truths! Therefore, it is pretty straightforward that Jn 15:26 means that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone [Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit; Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus].
Ans. 12: On the contrary, Jn 15:26 does not rule out Filioque but in fact implies it; we see in Mt 11:27 that the Son knowing Himself and the Holy Spirit knowing the Son are not excluded, and St. Augustine the Great of Hippo offers a robust defense of Filioque in light of John 15:26. It was the novelty of St. Photius the Great, who died in communion with Rome, to teach that the Holy Spirit does not in any way proceed from the Son eternally.

Obj. 13: Pope St. Agatho does not mention that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son [Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit 83].
Ans. 13:
Obj. 14: Pope Vigilius does not mention that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and proclaims instead that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and anathematizes anyone who introduces a different definition "than the unanimous and common faith of the pious" [Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit 82].
Ans. 14:
Obj. 15: If the Son has the power to originate, but the Spirit does not, then the Spirit is inferior in power to the Son.
Ans. 15: Cf. 10; the concern about the subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son stems from a misunderstanding of the relation of Filioque to the Cappadocian principle. The power is the same and equal, even with two-person notional descriptions: the Father and the Son have the power to spirate and the Holy Spirit has the power to be spirated.

Obj. 16: In PG 10:985A, St. Gregory the Wonderworker of Neocaesarea interprets 1 Cor 2:12 to say, "One Holy Spirit having existence from God and manifested to men through the Son." Therefore the saint believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son energetically, not from the Son essentially [Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus].
Ans. 16: In the first place, "to men" is an interpolation.
Obj. 17: St. Basil the Great of Caesarea says in PG 29:736B that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone: God the Father "sends forth the Spirit through His mouth ... for the Spirit is from Him and not from elsewhere" [Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus].
Ans. 17: St. Basil the Great did not teach that the Holy Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and here he emphasized that the Holy Spirit is not a creature. If he did, as Mark of Ephesus claims, then he would not have said in Against Eunomius 3: "Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity 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."

Obj. 18: At the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea [PG 85:1288C], St. Leontius of Caesarea said, "and of the Holy Spirit proceeding from Him, the Father" and said "Father" so that people would not think he meant that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, Whom he had just mentioned [Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus].
Ans. 18: This can be explained with reference to the above replies about the Greek vs. Latin vocabulary. If St. Leontius of Caesarea and the other Holy Fathers agreed with your novel doctrine, it would not have been agreed at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 that "The Spirit will be found proceeding from the Father, proper to the Son and gushing forth from Him" [Mansi 2:868CD].

Obj. 19: Patriarch St. Athanasius I the Great of Alexandria says in PG 28:97BC, "The sole unbegotten and sole fount of divinity, the Father." Filioque is false because the property of being the sole fount of divinity is incommunicable [Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus].
Ans. 19: If Filioque is false and St. Athanasius the Great disagreed with my above explanations on the monarchy of the Father in light of Filioque, then the most holy patriarch would not have been able to say that the Father and Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit [De Incarnatione 9 in PG 26:1000A]: "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: For with You is the font of life; because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit."Obj. 20: St. Cyril of Alexandria's repudiation of Theodoret's charges [Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus].
Ans. 20:

Obj. 21: Pope John VIII [Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit 89].
Ans. 21:
Obj. 22: Ps 32:6 says, "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established; and all the power of them by the Spirit of His mouth." King St. David applied "of His mouth" to the Father, not to the Son, and therefore taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone [Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit].
Ans. 22: King St. David taught no such error, and this hermeneutic fails when applied to the New Testament passages which speak of the Spirit as the Spirit of the Son [Gal 4:6], of Christ [Rom 8:9], and of Jesus Christ [Phil 1:19]. If only the Father spirates the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father only, and the New Testament passages quoted would make no sense.

Obj. 23: Thanks to Augustine and the Franks, the West has consistently failed to appreciate the difference between the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone vs. His eternal energetic manifestation from the Father through the Son and His going forth from the Son in terms of mission. The Fathers made this distinction and did not teach that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Ans. 23: Cf. 7. While the Eastern Fathers indeed made such a distinction between the Divine Essence and Divine Energy, it is false to say that they taught that the Holy Spirit receives His eternal existence from the Father alone. The falsehood of such a statement is clear from the statements of such God-bearing Fathers as Sts. Athanasius I the Great of Alexandria, Basil the Great of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril I of Alexandria. These saints clearly teach that the Spirit has His being from the Father and Son, and not the Father alone.

Obj. 24: By confusing the hypostatic properties of the Father and Son, Filioque makes the Father and Son a semi-Sabellian monster and dissolves the person of the Father into an attribute of the divine nature [Patriarch St. Photius I the Great of Constantinople, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit 9, 15].
Ans. 24: There is no such confusion of distinctive properties with Filioque; see 6, 7, 10, 11. It seems that all of St. Photius's triadological arguments were based on a failure to appreciate the compatibility of Filioque and the Cappadocian Principle.

Obj. 25: The difference of "through the Son" vs. "and the Son".
Ans. 25:

Obj. 26: The canonicity of the Latin addition of Filioque to the Creed: Canon 7 of Ephesus, St. Cyril I of Alexandria, Holy Fathers of Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, St. John II the Cappadocian of Constantinople, Pope St. Agatho.
Ans. 26:

[UNDER CONSTRUCTION!!!]

No comments: