This post will be from the Eastern point of view.

How can it be that the Father's hypostatic property of being the

single source & principle of divinity be given to the Son's hypostases without adding another principle in
addition? St Augustine taught in his De Trinitate that "in begetting the Son" the Father gave to the Son to be
source together with Him for the Holy Spirit. It appears as though we cannot mistake an addition between one
and another.

Any Latins care to explain?

Jonathan Prejean Stanley Ziobro Adithia Kusno

LikeCommentShare
Seen by 32
Edgar Nicholas Matouk and Charlie Salcedo like this.
Comments

Stanley Ziobro What addition is there? The Son is the perfect image of the Father, fully, immediately,
and simply.
Like Reply 2 December 24 at 1:30pm
Hide 83 Replies

Adithia Kusno Energetic procession is what Filioque is about. The Son eternally communicate the
essence of His Father to His Spirit.
Like Reply December 24 at 6:20pm

Steve Barber Adithia so you deny hypostatic procession then?

Like Reply December 24 at 7:13pm

Adithia Kusno Steve Barber, neither Lyon II 1274 nor Florence 1439 teach hypostatic procession from
the Son. The Father communicate His essence to the Son and through the Son to the Spirit. This is why
I become an Eastern Catholic after considering Eastern Orthodoxy...See More
Like Reply 2 December 24 at 7:31pm

Steve Barber I can't find it. Is it the 1995 PCPCU document that Erick implied was heretical the other
day?
Like Reply December 24 at 7:48pm

Adithia Kusno Steve Barber I know Erick Ybarra good enough. That he won't accuse this document to
be implicitly heretical. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm...
Edgar Nicholas Matouk this article tackle the misconceptions of the EOs.

Library : The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The

catholicculture.org
Like Reply 1 December 24 at 8:25pm Edited

Erick Ybarra The problem I was having was the reading in it which comes away with either two eternal
causes to the Spirit or that the Father alone is the cause, where the Son is merely a passageway ,
especially economic.
Like Reply 2 December 24 at 8:27pm

Adithia Kusno The article is quite cautious in walking between the two heresies, eternal double
spirations or economic procession only. I believe you'll agree with this , "The Father communicate His
essence to the Son and through Him to the Spirit." Filioque and energetic procession are compatible.
Filioque is about who spirated? Answer, from the Father through the Son. While energetic procession is
about how the spiration takes place? Answer from the hypostasis of the Father energetically through the
Son. Debating Filioque is like debating whether or not Ephesus was nullified by Chalcedon and that
Chalcedon was corrected by Second Constantinople which then recorrected by Third Constantinople.
The answer is simple Ephesus, Chalcedon, Second Constantinople, and Third Constantinople are
addressing different issues regarding Christology. I'm looking forward for the 22nd Ecumenical
Council to reconcile our theological misunderstanding between Assyrians on Ephesus, Orientals on
Chalcedon, and Greeks with Russians on Florence. Let us end the schism now. Lord have mercy.
Like Reply 2 December 25 at 1:06am Edited

Adithia Kusno You might want to read my answer to Edgar in regards to CCC where it stated the
hypostasis of the Spirit proceeded from the Son. EOs don't distinguish the unoriginate principality of
the Father from the originated principality of the Son. With that distinction Lyon II and Florence are
completely compatible with the Eastern theology.
Like Reply 1 December 24 at 8:39pm

Edgar Nicholas Matouk Erick Ybarra do you agree with that article above posted by Adithia Kusno?
Like Reply December 24 at 8:43pm

Edgar Nicholas Matouk Adithia Kusno I've made a new post - I think it would be helpful if we could
discuss the difference between cause & source in RCC... Please contribute to it
Like Reply December 25 at 5:09am

Edgar Nicholas Matouk So Adithia Kusno is the Son merely a passageway in the procession of the
Spirit & not a co-cause of the Spirit?
Like Reply Yesterday at 7:20am

Erick Ybarra Catholics don't teach 2 causes. The Spirit comes forth from Father & Son as from one
principle. Unless, of course, you think that 1 principle spirates the Spirit, and another gives the Spirit
his divine essence. But we don't separate that into 2 causes.
Like Reply 2 Yesterday at 7:23am

Craig Ostrowski Edgar,

The following is from Joseph Gill's work on the Council of Florence. I think you may find it helpful.
"Bessarion delivered his Oratio dogmatica to the assembled Greeks. . . [He said] ***The preposition
Dia (through) always has the force of a mediating cause. When used in connection with the Holy Spirit
it is an efficient cause, for there is no place for any other kind, and always refers back to the Father. The
Greek Doctors (who are quoted at length) who used the preposition 'through' of the production of the
Holy Spirit are manyAthanasius, Basil, Maximus, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John
Damascene, the seventh Council and Tarasius. St Maximus and St John Damascene, though they admit
of the use of the word 'through', seem to some to deny that the Son is also the cause of the Holy Spirit,
but that denial is only apparent, for in those passages they intend by the preposition Ek (from) the
principal cause."
(The Council of Florence, Joseph Gill, pp 240-241)
http://www.amazon.com/Council.../dp/0521176271/ref=sr_1_1...
On the basis of this proposition which was accepted by the Greeks in their own private discussion they
put it forward in a public session to the Latins. Gill continues:
"at the first meeting it was urged on the Greek side (by Bessarion, according to Syropoulus) that the

text of Maximus should be mutually accepted as a formula of union, but the Latins objected that,
though they too did not hold the Son to be the primary cause of the Holy Spirit, they did teach that with
the Father he was the cause of the Spirit. The second conference, on the following day, discussed the
profession of faith of Tarasius of Constantinople with its' Through the Son'. This suggestion may have
come from Isidore. At any rate he wrote a paper about this time that proposes a solution of the problem
along these lines.But the Latins could not agree. They inquired if 'through' and 'from' were the same in
Greek, and as they were not, they rejected 'through' lest it be interpreted merely as an instrument, like a
pipe for water."
(ibid, p. 245)
There was another private meeting of the Greeks at which Patriarch John said:
"Since we have heard the words of the Holy Fathers both eastern and western, the former saying that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the latter from the Father through the Son, even
though 'Through the Son' is the same as 'From the Son' and 'From the Son' the same as 'Through the
Son', still we, not using ' From the Son', say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the
Son eternally and substantially, as from one principle and cause, the 'Through' in that phrase meaning
cause in this matter of the Procession of the Holy Spirit"
(ibid, p. 259)
In another private Greek session held the following day, Patriarch John spoke again:
"since the Latins, not of themselves but from the holy Scriptures, explain the Procession of the Holy
Spirit as being also from the Son, I agree with them and I give my judgement that this 'Through' gives
to the Son to be cause of the Holy Spirit. I both unite with them and am in communion with them."
(ibid, p. 260)
Gill adds:
"When the Patriarch finished speaking there was general accord that the Holy Spirit proceeds from
Father and Son as from one principle and one substance, that he proceeds through the Son as of like
nature and substance, that he proceeds from Father and Son as from one spiration and procession."
(ibid, p. 261)
This was the basis of union at Florence along with its attribution of cause to the Son as well as its
implied interpretation of the same to Maximus' Letter to Marinus.

The Council of Florence

Originally published in 1959, this book provides a detailed study of the Council of Florence
amazon.com
Like Reply 3 Yesterday at 7:30am

Adithia Kusno Edgar notice what Fr Gill says, "didn't hold the Son to be the primary cause." That alone

is enough in showing how EOs misunderstood Florence like OOs misunderstood Chalcedon.
Unlike Reply 2 Yesterday at 10:16am

Adithia Kusno Edgar the Son is not merely a channel (passive spiration). He is the extension of the
Father, one principle of the single spiration of the Spirit (active spiration). Not as a pipe of water, but as
what St Damascene says, a river which is an extension of a fountain that connects to an ocean.
Unlike Reply 4 Yesterday at 10:21am

Edgar Nicholas Matouk I fail to see the difference between a pipe and a river in function?
Like Reply Yesterday at 4:05pm

Adithia Kusno A pipe is a medium not the water itself, a river is an extension of water flowing from a
fountain to an ocean.
Like Reply 1 23 hrs

Erick Ybarra Thought, word, voice

Like Reply 1 23 hrs

Adam Groves Adithia, maybe we ought to start a new thread, but I see you defend active spiration of
the Son, but you said earlier the Filioque is teaching a merely energetic procession from the Son (which
I take to exclude hypostatic procession). Active spiration ...See More
Like Reply 2 22 hrs

Edgar Nicholas Matouk Adam Groves I am also confused by Adithia Kusno's apparent double-speak...
Please explain Adithia
Like Reply 22 hrs

Stanley Ziobro What doube-speak is Adithia engaged in? His posts are quite lucid and solid.
Unlike Reply 2 22 hrs

Edgar Nicholas Matouk I'm mostly confused by the Son being an actively spiriting non-cause of the
Holy Spirit m, yet the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son equally as though through one
principle (and that principle is both Father and Son)...
Like Reply 22 hrs

Erick Ybarra as through one principle is different than by one principle

Unlike Reply 3 22 hrs

Adam Groves I always thought of it like a hug -- you have two people "active," but it is just one hug.
Like Reply 2 22 hrs

Adithia Kusno Adam Groves may I know if you have read any of these three books: 1 Siecienski's
Oxford monograph on Filioque, 2 Papadakis' Crisis in Byzantium, 3 Fr Gill's Acts of the Council of
Florence. In those three books is discussed why hypostatic spiration is anathematized. Edgar previously
quoted to me CCC in regards to hypostatic spiration and I've defended the language. The Spirit is not
the grandson of the Father, St Athanasius condemned hypostatic spiration because it introduce two
sources. CCC didn't introduce two sources. What EOs are confused is on the manner in which how
active spiration through the Son doesn't lead into two sources nor two causes. Thank you for defending
me Stanley Ziobro.
Unlike Reply 2 22 hrs

Stanley Ziobro Adithia, it helps to be sufficiently familiar with the scope of primary sources and
important secondary literature. Your comments indicate as much, and that you are precise and careful in
your language. Thanks for your input.
Unlike Reply 2 22 hrs

Mary Lanser Edgar Nicholas Matouk: Erick is right on this Edgar. The language is very carefully
spelled out "AS" from one principle rather than by one principle. It is the single word assertion that the
Son is ALL that the Father is: except the Son is not the Archon or God-head or cause of the Trinity. So
it is as from one principle and not "by" one principle. Those darn little prepositions are important!!
Like Reply 2 21 hrs Edited

Adam Groves Adithia, no, not those. I have no ax to grind, I was just asking for a clarification as I
suspect we are on the same side. Also I will readily admit you may know more about this than me -I'm here to learn or clarify what I know.
To me what you are saying is condemned is a double procession, not hypostatic procession filioque
(that is the Spirit's divine essence and hypostasis is communicated by Father and Son). And as for "as
through a single principle," vs "by the same principle" this is clearly an acknowledgement that two
supposita are active, yet it is a single act -- not that the Father is the only active person in
communicating the hypostasis.
As for the CCC it teaches the traditional Western view (which is not merely energetic) while leaving
room for the formula "through the Son" assuming it is understood in a correct manner (non passive
channel as you mention).
Like Reply 21 hrs

Adithia Kusno Adam Groves eternal energetic procession includes active spiration from the Father
through the Son as from one principle because a water which flow to the ocean comes from the

fountain through the river as one body of water not two bodies.
Like Reply 21 hrs

Adam Groves I agree with that -- the Son (River) is actively communicating his own substance (ousia)
also along with the fountain into a single flow. But that is precisely the point -- that can't be merely
energetic, because it is ontological relations.
Unlike Reply 1 21 hrs

Adithia Kusno I think we need to follow the example of St Cyril in his Formula of Union 433. By not
allowing us being chained by particular language. Remember that St Jerome in his letter 15 he
condemned three hypostases language. We know he is not a heterodox. So instead of debating the
language we should try to explain what do we mean by that. In the East we distinguish essence and
energies. But this distinction actually implicitly implied in the distinction between unoriginated and
originated principle.
Like Reply 21 hrs

Erick Ybarra Adithia Kusno,

Even today, I could condemn the 3 hypostases language, as well as homo ousia. It all depends on what
we mean by these. For instance, many were resistant @ homo ousia because of its analogy to real
physical world equality. In other words, two things that have the same substance are either materially
identical or existentially multiple. I could say that homo ousia is wrong if necessarily including these
implications.
Like Reply 1 20 hrs

Adam Groves I see. But doesn't that merely push the issue back a level to whether such a distinction is
orthodox when it comes to the divine essence in the first place? And then we will be left debating the
nature of such distinctions...
It seems real in the East, which seems to lean polytheistic. It seems non-existent in the West, which
seems to lean modalistic. Meeting in the middle with the Angelic Doctor is my preference for
resolution wink emoticon
Like Reply 1 20 hrs

Erick Ybarra right, I think St Augustine should be given more consideration, if not credit. He was, after
all, not making things up. at least, that is not how he introduces the subject.
Like Reply 20 hrs

Adithia Kusno Adam the distinction exists in Ss Athanasius and Cappadocian Fathers. It's Patristic in
origin. Sadly St Aquinas was after the schism, to reconcile Filioque we need to rely to pre schism
saints.
Like Reply 20 hrs

Adam Groves Aquinas work was instrumental at the reunion achieved at Florence. I maintain he is the
key, but I also appreciate your position and also Erick's appreciation of the potential role for S
Augustine.
Like Reply 20 hrs

Adithia Kusno St Aquinas died on his way to Lyon II in 1274, Florence is 2 centuries later. St
Augustine is suspected for heterodoxy in the East. If we want to make a progress we need to use
Cappadocian Fathers.
Like Reply 1 20 hrs

Steve Barber The Creed is is supposed to be the philosophy of fishermen. If you have to have the IQ of
Gary Gou-Lagrange to understand what it means then to hell with it.
Like Reply 20 hrs

Stanley Ziobro Fr. Garigou-Lagrange might suggest that the Creed is the work of those who came later
than the fishermen!
Like Reply 1 20 hrs

Adam Groves I didn't mean Aquinas himself, of course, but the school of which he is the namesake.
The problem with the Cappadocian Fathers from my perspective is they have been used as the stick to
beat the West for a long while (falsely, I suspect we will agree), but the "read-in" meaning on both sides
will be hard to disentangle.
But let us move on -- apparently you have no trouble accepting my exposition of what I call hypostatic
procession and you don't differentiate it from what you call energetic? We agree in substance?
Like Reply 20 hrs

Armin Ebner Adithia Kusno, FLorence uses the term "subsistent being" of the Spirit as caused by both
Father and the Son. what do yout think it means?
Like Reply 1 20 hrs

Armin Ebner perhaps you need to know that in scholastic terms subsistence is identical to hypostasis.
Like Reply 20 hrs

Steve Barber Later than the fishermen...or later than their philosophy?
Like Reply 20 hrs

Adithia Kusno Adam Groves we agree in substance, that's why after considering EO for 8 years I
decided to become a Byzantine Catholic. You might want to check Fr Christian Kaapes on St Mark and
Florence. And also Fr Jean-Miguel Garrigues on the Father as the source of whole Trinity.
Armin Ebner I've explained that on my previous comment on another thread. The hypostasis of the
Spirit existing eternally through the Son. In this sense the language of hypostatic procession in CCC is
acceptable in the East. The problem becomes hard to disentangle when East and West seeing the
procession with a different mindset. For the East the Greek word for procession explicitly demands a
procession from one person only not from two persons. In Latin, there is no such restrictions. The issue
of Filioque is analogous with how Assyrians misread St Cyril's miaphysite language as being
Apollinarian and how Alexandrians misread St Leo's dyophysite language as being Nestorian.
Like Reply 19 hrs

Armin Ebner Adithia, I am not arguing the doctrine but your assertions that "The Father communicate
His essence to the Son and through the Son to the Spirit. This is why I become an Eastern Catholic
after considering Eastern Orthodoxy for 8 years. Florence was misunderstood by EOs like Chalcedon
being misunderstood by OOs. The Spirit proceeded hypostatically from the Father alone. " I 'am not
misunderstood when Florence states " that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and
has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son" Notice that there
subsistence being is to mean hypostasis, which is contrary to what you assert.
Like Reply 1 19 hrs

Adithia Kusno Armin Ebner the hypostasis of the Spirit proceeded energetically through the Son.
Procession is about who not what. It's impossible to say the Spirit proceeded through the Son
energetically unless the Spirit as a distinct hypostasis proceeded through the Son energetically. The one
proceeded through the Son is not the Spirit's energies, because energies are common to three
hypostases. The hypostasis of the Spirit proceeded energetically through the Son. St Mark rejected
Florence simply because he only accept temporal sending of the Spirit in Christ's earthly ministry.
Papadakis admitted St Mark's error in his book. Try putting the word energetically in the sentence you
just quoted from Florence. That the Spirit proceeded energetically from the Father through the Son. The
idea of eternal energetic procession was first introduced by St Gregory II of Cyprus, discussed by
Papadakis. Ss Photius and Mark only accept temporal sending and refused any eternal relationship in
regards to procession to the Son. It was St Palamas who takes St Cypriot's idea into a developed form
by arguing that the hypostasis of the Spirit proceeded energetically through the Son eternally. This why
St Palamas is included as a Catholic saint, just as St Isaac of Nineveh who was an Assyrian and never
in communion with Rome.
Like Reply 17 hrs Edited

Armin Ebner Adithia do not argue with me. Argue in light o what the statement of Florence that i
showed you says.
Like Reply 6 hrs Edited

Armin Ebner I do not see it in any way shape or form that Florence is not saying that the Son is
involved in the subsistence of the HS.
Like Reply 17 hrs

Armin Ebner Adithia note that i am not taking any position on hypostatic/energy argument here. I am
only clarifying between what you say that Florence says and what Florence actually says.
Like Reply 5 hrs

Adithia Kusno Armin I think my explanation is clear: the hypostasis of the Spirit proceeded
energetically through the Son. Florence and Eastern view are compatible. St Mark was only concerned
to prevent two sources. His concern is legitimate. This is why Florence explicitly prohibit adding dia
tou huios in the Greek text. Because through the Son sounds like two sources. It's latter when St
Gregory II of Cyprus developed energetic procession that the procession through the Son is acceptable
in the East. I differ with Papadakis and Siecienski on the legitimacy of adding Filioque to the Latin
creed. But I agree with them that the language through the Son is indeed compatible with energetic
procession.
Like Reply 1 5 hrs Edited

Armin Ebner Adithia. I respect your reading of "the HS has his essence and his subsistent being from
the Father together with the Son". It indicates more than just an energetic involvement of the Second
Person. I very respectfully disagree.
Like Reply 5 hrs

Armin Ebner Adithia. Wait i think i can see it now.

Like Reply 1 5 hrs

Adithia Kusno Take your time Armin, it took me 8 years to realize that. Energetic procession means
mediated active spiration. The Son receives everything from the Father except paternity. Cappadocian
Fathers spoke about immediate generation of the Son and mediate spiration of the Spirit through the
Son. The Spirit proceeded immediately from the Father and mediate through the Son.
Like Reply 2 4 hrs

Adam Groves Here is the passage in question for those that wish to follow along.
"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy
universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all
Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and
has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both
eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers
say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also
the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as
principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father."

To me it seems obvious the main point of clarification is that the hypostasis of the Spirit comes not
from the Father alone, but from the Father and Son acting together communicate both the essence and
hypostasis. Your eternal energetic procession seems to allow for a joint communication of the
substance, but not hypostasis. The last sentence is clear that the principle of subsistence (hypostasis) is
communicated by both Father and Son acting jointly and singularly.
Like Reply 3 4 hrs

Armin Ebner Adam are we able to unequivocably tell that the energetic communication has to be only
of essence?
Like Reply 3 hrs Edited

Armin Ebner In fact and correct my perhaps shortsight here, but what type of energetic communication
is needed of the Son when it is meant to involve only the essence? The Son can convey it to the HS
passively as it is only one and the same.
Like Reply 3 hrs

Steve Barber "To me it seems obvious the main point of clarification is that the hypostasis of the Spirit
comes not from the Father alone, but from the Father and Son acting together communicate both the
essence and hypostasis."
Totally unacceptable heresy.
Like Reply 1 3 hrs

Stanley Ziobro Armin, the divine Essence cannot be other in any real sense. St. Thomas, based on
insights gained from Aristotle's understanding of the First Mover as Pure Act, rightly teaches that there
can be no potentiality in the Godhead and among the Persons. Hence, there can be no real passivity,
either. We can barely conceive of a reality where essence and existence are not other, and added to this,
where there is distinction without introducing multiplicity. This in part is why Adithia speaks of
energetic processions, and correctly so.
Like Reply 2 3 hrs

Stanley Ziobro Steve Barber Steve, both the Catholics and the Orthodox affirmed this teaching. I'm not
sure where any hint of heresy resides.
Like Reply 3 hrs

Armin Ebner Stanley, thatnks. However, you liked Adam's comment and that confused me because he
stated "Your eternal energetic procession seems to allow for a joint communication of the substance,
but not hypostasis" . I see that Adam and Adithia have opposing views of what Florence states in "and
has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son". For adithia the
energetic procession seems to result (mediately) in the HS subsistence.
Like Reply 3 hrs Edited

Stanley Ziobro Armin, I think both Adam and Adithia reflect the reality that an orthodox understanding
of the Spirit's procession admits of varied, but complementary, expressions. The dogmatic statement
from Florence really takes in both the Western and the Eastern orthodox theologies concerning the
origin of the Holy Spirit.
Like Reply 2 3 hrs

Adithia Kusno Adam Groves, energetic procession didn't exclude the spiration of the Spirit's hypostasis
through the Son. There is no anhypostatic energetic procession. Perry Robinson falsely dichotomies
energy which is not a hypostasis with energetic procession which is spiration of a hypostasis. So indeed
energetic procession includes the spiration of the Spirit's hypostasis energetically. The Greeks need the
distinction just as the Latins need to distinguish unoriginate and originate principle in the one spiration.
Unlike Reply 4 3 hrs Edited

Armin Ebner that's the clarification I was waiting for

Like Reply 1 3 hrs Edited

Adam Groves Adithia, I feel better now. Thanks for your patience with me, my friend.
Like Reply 2 3 hrs

Erick Ybarra It seems to me that the devices employed @ Florence centered around this fundamental
axiom: All things in God are one and identical save for their relations and personal properties. Since it
was thought that Father & Son are not opposed to each other in the spiration of the Spirit, they are
identical in this regard, and hence, the single principle.
Could anyone comment on that
Like Reply 3 hrs

Steve Barber This thread is awful; Rome is hopeless; I quit.

Like Reply 3 hrs

Stanley Ziobro Erick, the Father and the Son are never identical in any instance else they would be one
only Person. Even the single Principle of the Spirit's procession has its own hierarchy of Origin.
Like Reply 1 3 hrs

Stanley Ziobro Steve Barber Steve, granted that the Filioque is really no longer a bone of contention in
the official theological dialogue, where is Rome hopeless?
Like Reply 3 hrs

Erick Ybarra Stanley Ziobro the underlined text in Lonergan's work on trinity js what I'm trying to say.
He comments on athanasius'rule:

Like Reply 2 hrs

Stanley Ziobro Erick, yes, and the Father and Son are relationally opposed by paternity and filiation.
Like Reply 2 hrs

Mary Lanser Steve Barber: It is one of the best threads I've seen on the topic. Where are you finding
fault?
Like Reply 2 2 hrs

Erick Ybarra I think he left the group

Like Reply 2 hrs

Stanley Ziobro That is unfortunate.

Like Reply 2 hrs

Mary Lanser He didn't leave. His name is not greyed-out....least not yet.
Like Reply 2 hrs Edited

Stanley Ziobro I'm glad to hear it!

Like Reply 2 hrs

Mary Lanser Steve's not a quitter. He just gets disgusted...smile emoticon

Like Reply 2 hrs Edited

Stanley Ziobro Oh, the humanity! (Radio announcer in New Jersey as the Hindenbburg caught fire and
crashed while attempting to dock with its mooring at Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, NJ.)
Like Reply 2 hrs

Stanley Ziobro I hope this thread continues. Time to take care of other matters.
Like Reply 1 1 hr

Edgar Nicholas Matouk "We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be
signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the
subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father."
So according to the Greeks this means the Son is also a "cause" along with the Father. This is a heresy.
How do you answer this one Adithia Kusno?
Like Reply 1 hr

Adithia Kusno As an immediate cause is heresy, but as a mediating cause is not. This is why St
Maximos defending Filioque. The Son is of one cause with the Father as a mediating cause. This is the
teaching of Cappadocian fathers.
Like Reply 56 mins Edited

Edgar Nicholas Matouk Adithia Kusno in what sense is a mediating cause a true ontological cause
remember the words in the definition "according to the Greeks" - that means using Greek theological
language...
"Cause" is far more specific then the Latin word "principle"
Like Reply 54 mins Edited

Adithia Kusno Erick Ybarra it's necessary to point out that the Filioque language of the Latin Fathers
was not a heretical novelty introduced by St Augustine who is invited personally to Ephesus by St Cyril
but rather predates St Maximos' defense of Filioque. The only way to proceeds is by comparing preAugustinian filioque with pre-Maximian filioque. For example via Ss Damasus, Hilary, and Ambrose
who explicitly taught Filioque in Latin with the writings of Cappadocian fathers such as the one I
quoted below. I do granted that Siecienski and Papadakis questioned the authenticity of this letter:
"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."
St. Basil, Against Eunomius, 3:1.

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/.../the-cappadocian.../
But we need to remember that when St Mark rejected this letter at Florence, he was under a
presumption that the text was forged which later proven to be a wrong conjecture. Basilios Bessarion
upon his return to Constantinople checked the Greek copies of the letter and found only one out of six
which lack this passage. Which imply that even though variant texts do exist, it's highly unlikely that
all five were forged. This is where the entirety of Filioque argument is questioned in the East based on
the authenticity of this passage alone.
St Gregory II of Cyprus while rejecting Lyon II not because of the theology of Filioque but because of
altering the creed, assent that there is a middle way to read Filioque in an Orthodox fashion by
developing an eternal energetic procession. This as Papadakis and Siecienski argued I believe is the
solution for the East to accept the theology of Filioque. I need to remind us all that this solution is by
no means solve the change in the Latin creed. Supposed the theology of filioque is accepted via
energetic procession, St Cypriot still argue that it's wrong to alter the creed in anyway. Unless the
Easterners agree that when Rome has spoken case is closed, which they refused to accept, then we're
back to square one. The question is never about the theology of filioque but on the validity of altering
the creed without universal consent from the entire Eastern churches. This is why St Cyril upon
defending the title of Theotokos refrained from inserting it into the creed. I can only hope Filioque was
never added to the creed. The theology is correct but the addition might not be necessary at all. Lord
have mercy.
Edgar Nicholas Matouk Nathaniel McCallum

The Cappadocian Fathers and Filioque

keepthefilioque.com
Unlike Reply 2 4 mins Edited

Erick Ybarra Thanks I'll look into this later. Thanks for your help !
Like Reply 21 mins
Write a reply...

Adam Groves I don't think Augustine is communicating that the principle of paternity (of which source
is part) passes to the Son, for that is opposed to *their* relative relations.
Instead, what he appears to be saying is a logical sequence of eternal relations -- the one divine essence
is communicated Father to Son and then Father and Son to the Holy Spirit (he clearly is teaching a
hypostatic procession).

In this logical order, by the very filiation of the Son, the Son subsists in the divine essence, therefore it
is impossible for the Father (or Son) to act apart from their consubstantial divinity in the procession of
the Spirit.
Even with Father and Son both active in communicating the hypostasis to the Spirit, the Father is still
source of the divinity because He is first in logical order of eternal relations.
Like Reply 2 December 25 at 1:23am Edited

Glenn Guadalupe THough it should be distinguished that the term "procession" in Latin theology does
not carry with it the exclusive absolute reference to "principle without princple" that it does in Eastern
theology.